(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "The Crescent City disaster : a small town rebuilds"

711.40973 
C864 
cop. 3 



' llllll l llll l lllllllllll H III 



HI 



SHh 



IIIUIIIIIIIIIIIII ^ . 1 I I u ■ . 1 . . ■ ■ t I i|i i 



■laMliiilm m 



iSi Ji l^iyiiHltaibiHJlHHiUH 



The Crescent City Disaster: 
A Small Town Rebuilds 



L 



^1 wm\ |g 



f^ 



^ 



Department of Architecture 
LIniversity of Illinois at Lrbana -Champaign 



LINOIS HISTORICAL SURVEY 



THE CRESCENT CITY DISASTER: 
A SMALL TOWN REBUILDS 



Sherry Acord 

Mary Patricia Lynch 

*Kathy Cooney 

Lois Rocker 

Suzanne Dash 

Steven Trlerweiler 

♦Leonard Lingo 

♦Project Directors and Editors 



Dr. Claude Wlnkelhake, Faculty Advisor 
Dr. Demitri Shimkin, Project Consultant 



March, 1978 



Sponsored by 

National Science Foundation 

Student-Originated Studies 

NSF-SOS SMI 77-05136 

Department of Architecture 
University of Illinois 

Urbana, Illinois 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Acknowledgements iii 

List of Illustrations ^y 

Introduction 1 

Subject and Coals of Research 2 

The Explosion ^ 

Immediate Impact of Explosion 6 

Description of the Rebuilding Process 10 

Introduction 10 

Diagram of Rebuilding Phases 10 

Phase One Diagram 12 

Summary 

Events 

Roles and Policy 
Phase Two Diagram 20 

Summary 

Events 

Roles and Policy 
Phase Three Diagram 30 

Summary 

Events 

Roles and Policy 
Phase Four Diagram 3 6 

Summary 

Events 

Roles and Policy 
Phase Five Diagram 42 

Summary 

Events 

Roles and Policy 
Seven Years After 45 

48 
Conclusions 

Methodology 54 

Implications for Future Research 57 

Appendix 59 

^ NSF-SOS Program 60 

tK Definitions of Terms 61 

N Crescent City Today 62 

I Development in Iroquois County before 1970 64 

Questionnaire "^ 

Structured Interview '6 

Bibliography °4 

_^ Data Sources 

Methodology Sources 

(5 



ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 



The Crescent City research team would like to thank 

Dr. Claiide Winkelhake, our principal advisor; Dr. Dendtri Shimkin, 

project consultant; and our faculty advisors. Professors 

Lachlan Blair, Larry Cohen, Harry Triandis, and Jon Van Es. 

Special thanks are in order for Dr. Max Ward and the National 
Science Foundation for rtaking the project possible. 

Vfe gratefully acknowledge G. Day Ding, as well as the staff of 
the Departitent of Architecture, especially Brenda Polk, Irene Kipp, 
Carole Couch, Ginna Mahin, and Marsha Goldenstein. 

Finally, we extend our special gratitude to the people of Crescent 
City, Illinois, v^o not only patiently, but enthusiastically, 
answered our questicxis and offered their insights. 



Ill 



LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 

Figure 1 Iroquois County Map 3 

Figure 2 Explosion, June 21, 1970 4 

Figure 3 Main Street, 1960 (looking southeast) 7 

Figure 4 Aerial photo looking west, late June, 1970 7 

Two-block area outlined. 

Figure 5 Crescent City map (1977) . Two-block area outlined 8 

Figure 6 Diagram of rebuilding phases 10 

Figure 7 Phase One diagram of events and lot map 12 

Figure 8 Phase Two diagram of events and lot map 20 

Figure 9 A design proposal for blocks one and two; Phase Two 21 

Figure 10 Comprehensive Plan proposal 26 

Figure 11 Phase Three diagram of events and lot map 30 

31 

Figure 12 A design proposal for block one; Phase Three 

Figure 13 Phase Four diagram of events and lot map 36 

Figure 14 Phase Five diagram of events and lot map 42 

Figure 15 A design proposal for blocks one and two; Phase Five 43 

Figure 16 Main Street, 1977 (looking southeast from Main and Colfax).... 46 

Figure 17 Main Street, 1977 (looking southwest between Grant and Maple). . 46 

Figure 18 Diagram of Rebuilding Process 51 

Figure 19 Simplified Conceptual Framework, July, 1977 . 55 



PHOTO CREDITS 

The team is indebted to the following people whose photographs appear in this 
report: 

Figure 2 Kankakee Daily Journal 
Figure 3 Dennis Harms, Crescent City, Illinois 
Figure 4 Danner and Associates, Consulting Engineers, 
Champaign, Illinois 



IV 



z 



h 

u 

3 
Q 


0[ 

h 

Z 



INTRODUCTION 



Subject of Research Crescent City is a small town located in the center 

of Iroquois County in east central Illinois. Its 
population in 1977 was about 700. On June 20, 1970, 
a freight train transporting liquid propane gas de- 
railed in Crescent City, causing a series of explo- 
sions which virtually leveled the town's business 
district. Many homes were also destroyed and others 
substantially damaged. This research project in- 
tended to describe the redevelopment process in 
Crescent City's business district after the disaster. 

Goals of the Study Our goals were twofold: first, that the information 

gathered about Crescent City's redevelopment could 
become part of a later comparative study; and second, 
that the description be useful, as is, to architects 
and planners working at the scale of the small town. 
It is our hope that the analytic framework which we 
have developed to describe the redevelopment can be 
used to describe other specific development processes. 



ILLINOIS 

10 40milei 




IROQUOIS 
COUNTY 



S mi lei 



norf h 
r I 



Iroquois County Map 



THE EXPLOSION 

By far the most dramatic physical change in Crescent City's history 
occurred on June 21, 1970. At 6:30 a.m., a freight train on the Toledo, 
Peoria and Western railway derailed near the Crescent City business dis- 
trict. The train consisted of 109 cars; a journal on the 20th car had 
overheated and broken. This car, carrying sand, derailed, and brought 
the next thirteen cars with it. Nine of these were tank cars carrying 
liquid propane. 




Figure 2 



Explosion, June 21, 1970 



THE EXPLOSION (cont.) 



One of the tank cars was punctured and released propane gas. Although 
it is not known how, the gas ignited and flames spread to the nearby build- 
ings. Crescent City's volunteer firemen arrived on the scene shortly there- 
after, pouring water on the burning buildings and derailed cars. At this 
point they believed that they could keep the fire under control and kept 
positions close to the fire. However, an Illinois State Police sergeant 
learned that the tank cars contained propane, a fact previously unknown to 
the firemen. At this point the firemen moved back to safer positions and 
police began to evacuate the town. 

More fuel was added to the fire when safety valves on the tank cars re- 
sponded to the increasing pressure and released some of the gas. Neighbor- 
ing communities were contacted for assistance. The situation was further 
complicated by the fact that power lines operating the main water pumps had 
to be de-energized as they were dangling and exposed to fire. 

At 7:33 a.m., one of the tank cars exploded with a tremendous force, 
hurling large portions distances of 600 and 700 feet away. A huge fireball 
extended hundreds of feet into the air (Fig. 2). This explosion was followed 
by three others over the course of the next three hours, causing extensive 
property damage and injuries. Initial confusion, due to the large numbers 
of local firefighting units with no central authority, was eventually alle- 
viated by a State Police command post. 

Crescent City residents were permitted to return to their homes after 
2:00 p.m. on June 22nd. Two tank cars were still burning that evening, and 
one the next day, but these fires were under control. 



IMMEDIATE IMPACT OF THE EXPLOSION 

As a result of the explosions, sixty-six people were injured, eleven 
seriously. Fortunately, there were no deaths immediately attributed to 
the disaster. 

Property damage was extensive in the town. Twenty-nine residences 
(both single-family detached and apartment units) were destroyed, while 
many others were substantially damaged. The town's two-block business dis- 
trict (see Figs. 4 and 5) was almost entirely devastated, with sixteen 
businesses completely destroyed and seven others severely damaged. 

The subsequent events and activities in Crescent City relative to the 
redevelopment of its business district form the major substance of this re- 
port. 




Figure 3 Main Street, 1960 (looking southeast) 

Figure ^ Aerial photo looking west, late June, 1970. 
Two-block area outlined. 






locati 
of 
explosions 




&MiL 








fl ^fL 







Q 





^D 


B B 


^ ^ 




' 


1=Q 


D 


D S 




iavra, 


E3« a 


I tQ 




iQ c n 




ri^ 




a 



[D & 



r 




crescent city, 
illinois ^ 



leo 100 4(0 1 



^im^ 



Figure 5 



DESCRIPTION OF THE REBUILDING PROCESS 



Introduction 



In this section it may appear, especially to any Crescent City resident 
reading this report, that we are emphasizing the problematic aspects of the 
rebuilding process in Crescent City at the expense of the experiences many 
people told us about during our summer of fieldwork. We recognize this em- 
phasis and wish to state that it has been our intention to highlight the 
problems the town had to face. By doing this, we hope these rebuilding 
problems might be more clearly recognized and, therefore, more easily anti- 
cipated. Hopefully, anyone reading this report on Crescent City's unique 
experience may learn something of value, should that experience prove to be 
not so unique. 

Certain conventions of style were used throughout each section of the 
report to make its content more understandable. Role/policy sections con- 
sist of our interpretations and conclusions from our data materials. We 
have paraphrased some comments made by Crescent City residents during our 
interviews. Where these are included, the speaker is identified only in 
terms of the role he or she is playing (businessman, resident, etc.). Para- 
phrases were selected over direct quotations to help prevent disclosure 
of the source of the information. Present tense is used to describe events 
in the events section. All persons are referred to in the masculine gender, 
although some of the key characters are women. Again, this convention has 
been used merely to prevent identification of individuals. 

The reader may wish to refer to the definitions of key terms, found in 
the Appendix. 



June 21 1970 




Aug 7 






NovS 






Feb 3 1971 




Oct 4 






Jon 1972 


Explosion 


Decision to 
form CCDC 


First non-plan 

building 

started 


Key lot sold 

to plan 

non- supporter 


Block two 
lots bought 
by CCDC 


CCDC 

building 
completed 




PH 
ON 


E 




PHAS 
TWO 


E 




PH 
TH 


ASE 
REE 




PH 
FO 


ASE 

UR 




PH 
FIV 


ASE 

'E 








Reorgo 
ond se< 


nix 
arch 


ation 
for 


Plan f 


orm 


ulotion 


Depar 
rebuil 


ture 
ding 


from 
plan 


Declin 
suppoi 


> of 

t 




Plan 
implen 


lent 


ation 





resources 



Diagram of rebuilding phases 



Figure 6 



10 



(0 
0) 
UJ 

u 



cc 
a 

z 

5 

J 

3 
ui 

CI 

IL 



z 



a 
u 

01 
U] 

D 



Jun 21 1970 



Exploiion 
Two blocks of 
butin«*t oroo 
lovolod 



Commujty r«*id*nt« 



EVENT 
ROLES 



Building pormlt 
ittu«dfar n«w 
building outtida 
two block orao 



Buiinatsmon 
Villoaa Board 



Jun 29 



Phase One 

Reorganization and Search 
for Resources 



Rabuildingdaiifn 
taom lalactad 
HUD houtinf 
ditcuttad 



VilioflaBoord LGA 
County hnuiina Auth 



Jul 6 



Community-wlda 
planning maating- 
unifiad rabullding 
and cooparation 
itraiiad 



Ootign Taom Moy or 
Comniunltw ra«idant» 



Jul 10 



Aug T 



Dacition to form 
privata 
davalopmant 
corporotion 



SBA LGA 
Vilioga Board 
Co«nniuPitv ratidant^ 



Economic analyi ii 
of town complatad 



Oatign Taam 
LGA 



Aug 1 



Key to Lot Mop 



axiiting building 



Main St. (US. 24) 



12 


II 


10 


9 


8 


7 


6 


5 


4 


3 


2 


1 



o 
u 



BLOCK TWO 



13 j 


14 IS 1 


16 1 1 


7 ' 18 



Figure 7 



c 
o 

«5 



Union St. 
12 



12 


II 


10 


9 


8 


7 


6 


5 






2 


1 


4 


3 



I^ 



BLOCK ONE 



□ 

14 



IS 



16 



E: 



17 



3 



18 



Q. 
O 



25 50 100 faat 



Phase One — Summary 

Phase One was essentially an initial organizing phase during which few major 
decisions were made. However, it is important because it was the time during 
which the people in Crescent City began to familiarize themselves with the re- 
sources at their disposal to assist in redevelopment. The distinction between 
roles in this phase is best made on the basis of resources. 

Our description has focused mainly on events and roles which relate to the two- 
block business area. Fifteen people either owned lots or ran businesses in 
the area prior to the explosion. 

Crescent City was declared a disaster area by the Small Business Administration 
(SBA) but not by the federal government since the explosion was not an "act of 
God." This was significant in that it precluded the possibility of Crescent 
City benefitting from several different federal disaster aid program. The only 
rebuilding money immediately available was through the SBA 502 program. SBA 
deals only with private interests, making it necessary to form a private develop- 
ment corporation. Definite commitments from prospective renters were required 
before any money would be loaned by SBA. 

In effect, it became not only desirable, but financially necessary, to elicit 
unified cooperation in order to qualify for the loans. While SBA did have a 
program to make loans to individuals, the stipulations of this program were 
such that only one person applied for and received this loan. 

Planning funds obtained from LGA were made available to the design team chosen 
by the Village Board. LGA required that a comprehensive plan for the entire 
community be developed. Specific architectural design was not part of the 
planning report. 



13 



Phase One — Events: June 21, 1970 to August 6, 1970 



June 21 



As a result of the explosions and fire, the following 
businesses have been destroyed in the two-block business 
district: 



gas station 

2 taverns 

hardware store 

barbershop 

poultry and feed store 

piano tuning and repair shop 

laundromat 

sheet metal business 

beauty shop 

machine shop 

tool and die business 

construction office 

auto repair 

corn crib and two steel bins 

Two vacant buildings have also been destroyed, as well 
as seven apartments (owned by two different people) . 
The U.S. Post Office and Iroquois Township Building are 
leveled also. 



June 22 



Residents are permitted to re-enter Crescent City and 
clean-up efforts begin, both on the private level and 
with assistance from various agencies. Emergency 
relief is provided by the Red Cross, and clean-up 
assistance comes from various government agencies and 
volunteers. 



June 23 



Governor Ogilvie visits Crescent City and promises to 
do what he can to help. 

A special meeting is held at the town hall, with repre- 
sentatives in attendance from the Better Business 
Bureau, the Watseka First Trust and Savings, and the 
Small Business Administration (SBA) . Crescent City has 
been declared a disaster area by SBA, but not by the 
federal government, since the explosion was not "an act 
of God." 



June 29 



The Toledo, Peoria and Western Railroad accepts finan- 
cial responsibility for the disaster, and railroad 
adjusters begin immediately to accept and settle claims. 

The first announcement of intent to rebuild is made by 
one owner of a business destroyed in the two-block 
area. 

At a town meeting, a building permit is Issued to this 
owner allowing him to put up a prefabricated building 
on a different site. Also at this meeting, an 18-month 
limit is placed on the use of trailers as temporary 
housing. A disaster fund is established at the Watseka 

First Trust and Savings. 
14 



Phase One — Events (cont.) 

July 6 At the Village Board regular meeting, two representatives 

of the Iroquois County Housing Authority make a presenta- 
tion explaining the possibilities of HUD-financed low- 
income and elderly housing for Crescent City. Crescent 
City may be eligible for this support now, because so many 
homes have been destroyed; also because there is a higher 
than average percentage of persons over 65 living in the 
town. A resolution is passed requesting the Housing 
Authority to apply for 30 units of housing. 

At the same meeting, two representatives of the State 
Department of Local Government Affairs (LGA) help the 
Board make the final selection of the architectural firm 
which will do the planning work for the redevelopment. A 
firm from Champaign, Illinois is selected. 

July 10 A community-wide planning meeting is held at the Crescent 

City grade school, attended by about 125 persons. Two 
major issues are discussed: Small Business Administration 
(SBA) funding and the work to be done by the design team. 

The SBA representative explains that SBA deals only with 
private interests, not with local governments. Through 
the SBA 502 program, low-interest (5 1/2%) loans can be 
made to a local private corporation for 90% of the cost 
of construction of new business buildings. (Private lend- 
ing institutions, at regular interest rates, must be tried 
first.) However, the local corporation is responsible for 
the remaining 10% of the cost of construction and can rent 
or eventually sell property to individual businessmen. 
Before a loan can be approved, a corporation must be 
formed and definite commitments by prospective renters 
must be obtained. 

At the same meeting, the members of the design team, in- 
cluding architects, planners, and consultants (including 
economic and geological) are introduced to the audience. 
A spokesman for the team announces a timetable of work 
to begin immediately, culminating in the release of their 
recommendations in six weeks. The State Department of 
Local Government Affairs, under its 701 program, will 
pay for 2/3 of the planning costs; the Village will pay 
the rest. 

The mayor of Crescent City urges citizens to make their 
feelings known. The desirability of a coherent, unified 
business district is stressed by the SBA representative 
and the design team, with emphasis on private redevelopment. 

July 21 The contract is signed between the planning team and the 

Department of Local Government Affairs (LGA). 



15 



Phase One — Events (cont.) 



July 23 The Watseka Daily Times-Republic announces a question- 

naire, dealing with local shopping patterns and prefer- 
ences, which will contribute to the analysis being done 
by the economic consultant. 

July 30 The economic and geological reports for the design team 

are completed and sent to LGA. Results are not yet pre- 
sented to town members, but will be used as a basis for 
later planning decisions. 



16 



Phase One — Roles and Policy 



Railroad 



The railroad 
resources. S 
those who had 
is that settl 
value of the 
aJ 1 of the bu 
than 50 years 
value was abo 



played an important role due to its financial 
ettlements were made almost immediately with 

property damage or loss. An important point 
ements were made based on the pre-disaster 
property, not the replacement cost. Since 
ildings in the business district were more 

old, and some much older, the pre-disaster 
ut 25% of replacement costs in most cases. 



Businessmen 



The businessmen in the two-block area had the most important 
resource: the property to be redeveloped. 

As might be expected, some varying opinions were expressed 
regarding the railroad settlements for property damage: 



(Village Board member): 



Some people made money off the 
settlements. 50% were satisfied, 
50% were not, but knowing those 
people, nothing would have satis- 
fied them. 



Design Team 



Local Government 



County Government 



State Government 



(Businessman) : 



(Town resident) 



Some businessmen really cleaned 
up — $10,000 for a $1000 building. 

Two of the empty storefronts on 
Main Street could have been bought 
for $5000 or $5500 apiece, but 
would cost $40,000 to replace. 



The design team's resource was its expertise. Using its 
expertise, it was responsible for developing a rebuilding 
plan and acting in an advisory capacity. It had two formal 
clients — LGA and the Village Board — and two "informal" cli- 
ents — the businessmen and community residents. 

On the public side, governmental agencies at four levels 
interacted with the town during phase one. At the local 
level, the mayor had the necessary leadership qualities 
and some contacts at higher levels of government. The 
Village Board had the official authority to make public 
decisions. However, the types of decisions they were 
called upon to make now were much broader in scope than 
the decisions they had been responsible for previously. 

At the county level, the Iroquois County Housing Authority 
acted as a channelling device for federal housing funds. 

Two roles were important at the state level: the governor 
and the Department of Local Government Affairs (LGA) . The 
governor had contacts, visibility, and official authority. 
He initiated many contacts for Crescent City in an attempt 
to get funds. Many of these contacts did get in touch 
with the mayor. 



17 



Phase One — Roles and Policy (cont.) 

LGA, being a public agency, had stipulations regarding 
the use of its 701 planning funds, which were federal in 
origin. LGA required that a report, including a compre- 
hensive plan, be prepared. Specific architectural work 
would be additional, under a separate contract. 

(Design team member) : There was disagreement between 

the planners and the architects 
about the importance of developing 
plans as opposed to writing a re- 
port. 

Federal Government Finally, at the federal level, three roles were important 

in Phase One. HUD was a prospective source of money in 
the form of subsidized housing. SBA was a prospective 
source of loans; its stipulations regarding the necessity 
of a local corporation were extremely important in shaping 
the course of future events. 

The third role at the federal level was influential not 
for what it did, but for what it didn't do. That is, the 
appropriate federal authorities chose not to name Crescent 
City a disaster area and, therefore, it was not eligible 
for certain federal disaster assistance programs. 



18 



Aug 7 1970 



Decision to form 
private develop- 
ment corporation 
(CCDC) 



SBA LGA 
Villoge Board 
Community resident 5 



Development 
Corporation 
formed. Boord of 
directors elected 



CCDC 

Community residents 



Aug 27 



Phase Iv/o 

Plan Formulation 



Initial rebuilding 
plans discussed 
at CCDC meeting 



CCDC 
Design Teom 



Sep 16 



Purchase of block 
one and two lot 
options begins 



CCDC 

Lot Owners 



Sep 28 



Comprehensive 
planning report 
presented at 
community 
meeting 



Nov 5 



First non-plan 
building in block 
one started 



Bu 



sinessmon 



DesignTeom CCDC 
Community residenti.. 



Oct 12 



Approval of thirty 
units HUD housing 



Village Board 
County housing Auth 

Oct 30 



Key to Lot Map 



Land Purchase 



Building 



^ 



by CCDC (option) 



existing 



Main St. (U.S. 24) 





J 


1 


1 






r^ 


Vs 






\\ 


5 


r; 


v|| 


■10 


H 


/ 


-6^ 


.S 


4 


J 


^^^ 


• I-- 




sN 


\.>k. 


V.\ 






-k-ik. 


S N 






i-A 



BLOCK TWO 



o 
u 



1 

13 j 


14 1 15 j 


1 
16 1 


7 1 18 









1 


1 


i 




__^ 




















X^ 


v\ 


\^ 


\\ 












12 


II 


10 


n'> 


^^ 


7N 


N*- 


t} 


4 


3 


2 


1 



o 







BLOCK 


ONI 






iW 


14 


h- 

15 


r 

16 


y 

17 


-< 

18 



a 
o 

s 



Figure 8 



Union St. 



20 



Phase Two — Summary 

In this phase a community based development corporation (CCDC) was formed and 
a board of directors elected. The same planning design team was chosen to de- 
velop an architectural rebuilding plan for the CCDC. The design team in the first 
two phases worked with businessmen mainly through the mayor. The mayor and 
design team continued to look for sources of rebuilding funds in addition to 
SBA funds. The planning report was presented at a community-wide meeting. Later, 
one businessman requested a building permit in block one, indicating that some 
businessmen did not wish to wait for organized rebuilding. The CCDC began to 
purchase lot options in the two-block area. 



^°in St 




T««n 
c*nt»r 

Villag* 
hall 


/ 






Stor«( 









44 ( 



ruQi *- 



Drug 



Shops Hordwor. 



Bonk 



Union St 



Figure 9 



A design proposal for blocks one and two; Phase Two 



21 



Phase Two — Events; August 6, 1970 through November 5, 1970 



August 6 



A public meeting is held with 200 people in attendance. 
The planning team submits the results of the market 
survey, which indicate that 12,571 people would use 
a new shopping center in Crescent City, with a pur- 
chase volume of $450, 000/year . The businesses named 
most desirable are a bank, grocery, hardware store, 
variety store, restaurant, beauty shop, laundromat, 
and a barber shop. 



August 20 



The SBA representative again explains the conditions 
of SBA loans and the need for a private corporation. 

It is announced that a development corporation will 
be formed, with the board and officers to be chosen 
soon. 75 people pledge $25 each to the corporation. 

A representative of Eisner's, a grocery store chain, 
tells the Village Board that in order to operate a 
store in Crescent City, he will need to take in 
$8,000 a week. 



August 27 



100 residents are present at a meeting at which the 
Crescent City Development Corporation (CCDC) is formed. 
An 11-member board, including a director, are elected 
from 29 nominees. The same architectural firm is hired 
to do additional work, not part of the LGA contract, 
as needed. 



September 9 



The first CCDC board meeting is held at the high school, 
The top priority is to get a grocery store to come in 
to the new village center. The possibility is dis- 
cussed that there could be more market potential than 
was indicated in the survey if a larger area were con- 
sidered. 



September 16 



100 members of the CCDC meet at the grade school to 
hear a progress report by the design team. Plans call 
for a new shopping center on block 2 with future expan- 
sion into block 1. 



September 25 



CCDC begins trying to buy options on lots in block 1 
of the 2-block area. The board members feel that de- 
velopment can best be handled in a unified way if all 
the lots are under a single ownership, or at least op- 
tioned by the same owner. 



October 12 



October 15 



At a public meeting the rebuilding report and community 
plan required by LGA are presented to community residents. 

CCDC obtains options on Lots 2, 5, 9, 10; 11 in block 2. 



22 



Phase Two — Events 



October 16 



October 17 
October 19 
October 30 



November 1 



November 2 



The principal architect advi 
that LGA will pay $2500 unde 
if CCDC wll match the funds, 
sonal interviews be held wit 
the business district, and t 
to get firm commitments for 
the corporation. (At this t 
the corporation were highly 
that substantial investments 
to raise enough money to imp 



ses the CCDC chairman 
r the second contract 

He suggests that per- 
h owners and lessors in 
hat stock options be sold 
stock to be sold later by 
ime, the expectations for 
optimistic. It was hoped 

would be made in order 
lement the plan.) 



CCDC obtains options on Lots 1, 6 in block 2. 

CCDC obtains options on Lots 6, 7, 8, 9 in block 1. 

The Watseka Daily Times-Republic announces that the 
County Housing Authority has received notice of HUD 
approval of 20 low-rent housing units in Crescent 
City (6 low-income and 14 elderly). 

The mayor estimates a $250,000 grant (1/3 of expenses) 
will be needed to keep costs down and rents affordable 
in the new village center. 

At the regular Village Board meeting, the Assistant 
State's Attorney from Iroquois County is present to 
discuss the HUD housing project. Also, a building 
permit is issued to a businessman to rebuild in block 1. 



23 



Phase Two — Roles and Policy 



CCDC 



The CCDC was formed to make the town eligible for an 
SBA 502 loan. Businessmen and community residents 
were asked to contribute $25 each to become members 
of the not-for-profit corporation. It assumed respon- 
sibility for local management of rebuilding in the 
destroyed two-block area. Its success depended upon 
cooperation among businessmen and lot owners within 
that area, community residents, and the design team. 
A board of 11 members was elected to direct the CCDC 
efforts. 



Design Team 



Both the mayor and the principal architect were very 
busy during this phase trying to locate possible sources 
of public funds. The approval of the HUD housing was 
the only source of funding which came through during 
this phase, but this did nothing to help commercial 
development. 

The design team made their recommendations for rebuilding 
during this phase. They recommended that: 

— the village center be rebuilt as a private venture 

— the CCDC immediately obtain options on all property 
in blocks one and two. Block two would be needed 
for immediate development and block one for future 
expansion. 

— the CCDC solicit letters of intent from prospective 
tenants 

— the development consist of nine store units of vary- 
ing sizes and their related parking 

— parking should be off-street 

— the development should be convenient, easily ac- 
cessible, preserve the rural appearance, have a 
distinct appearance, be of economical construction, 
and be well landscaped. 

Problems arose due to differing expectations about the 
desired outcome of the planning work. 



(Design team member) : 



In a sense, there were two cli- 
ents: LGA and the town. LGA 
did more than the townspeople 
wanted or expected. People did 
not care about future develop- 
ment, but LGA money was origi- 
nally federal money, and neces- 
sitated a general community plan. 
People felt the plan was too 
non-specific . 



24 



Phase Two — Roles and Policy (cont.) 



(Design team member) : 



In the peoples' opinion, only 
the leveled blocks ought to be 
developed "right"; in the rest 
of the area, the didn't want 
the architects or city hall to 
interfere. 



A diagrammatic map of the comprehensive plan can be seen 
in Figure 10. 



Community Residents 



Some of those we interviewed stated that there were 
mixed feelings toward the CCDC from the very beginning. 
To some, the CCDC board elections seemed predetermined. 



(Businessman) : 



They railroaded their men in. 



Some people were disillusioned when they felt they had 
no say in the decision-making process. There was also 
misunderstanding about what a development corporation 
was for and what it proposed to do. 



(Village official); 



Everyone on the board was soli- 
citing door-to-door, but people 
didn't want to buy a share 
without getting anything in re- 
turn. They had never heard of 
a development corporation. 



Since at one time the CCDC had considered financing re- 
building through issuing bonds, the reactions of com- 
munity residents to rebuilding were important. The fear 
that rents would be too high in the new Village Center 
without some sort of aid was becoming more widespread. 
Crescent City, it was feared, could not compete with 
the larger nearby towns. The design team's plans seemed 
overly optimistic and expensive. 



(CCDC member) 



(Town resident) : 



(Town resident) 



People were all hepped up for 
rebuilding, but the architect's 
plans scared them. 

The "older generation" in 
Crescent City would not accept 
any plan so grand. 

They (the design team) presented 
plans and drawings, but the peo- 
ple were only interested in fi- 
nancing. When they got their 
insurance money, they were no 
longer interested in big plans. 



25 




26 




n i>| Hn « nMu ) >"Mm iiii nn rr7 i Trn t> n i inM >i uM ii m i MHM I nh »> mu > ii mm i HHM in iien 

7 lc =^ 




Figure 10 Comprehensive Plan proposal 
27 



Phase Two — Roles and Policy 



Lot Owners The owners of lots in the two-block area began to play 

active roles, either in support or non-support of the 
CCDC by selling or not selling options to their lots. 
All but six owners in the two-block area sold options 
very early. These six had various reasons for holding 
back: 



One person wanted to rebuild the apartments he had 
owned before, but this use did not conform to the 
planned commercial use for his lots. 



28 



Phase Two — Roles and Policy 



One other person did not want to sell to the CCDC 
because he distrusted their motives; it was a "land 
grab". Ke was not particularly interested in re- 
building, feeling that his one lot was too narrow 
(25'), and he knew the owners of the contiguous 
properties were unlikely to sell to him. 

Another property in question during phase two was 
owned by a person who did not live in Crescent 
City. Relatives were operating the business for 
him, but they did not want to rebuild after the ex- 
plosion for reasons of health and the feeling that 
the business could not survive much longer. I'Jhy 
they did not sell options immediately is not known. 
One of them was on the Village Board at the time. 

Three owners wanted to rebuild their businesses im- 
mediately on the same lots, although one wanted to 
build a different type of business. They did not 
want to wait for the CCDC and its plan to come 
through. One of these owners received a permit to 
rebuild on the same lot. The permit had been 
withheld earlier due to noncompliance with new 
zoning requirements for setback. 

(Village Board member) : He wanted to put his build- 
ing right back where it was 
and resented being told what 
to do. 

A Village Board member convinced the Board that 
this person was losing money every day and couldn't 
live off the railroad settlement because it had 
to be used for rebuilding. 



29 



Nov 5 1970 



First non— plan 
building in block 
one started 



Businessman 



EVENT 
ROLES 



JWA survey shovi^s 
lack of suoport 
for rebuiding 
plan 



JWA CCDC 
Community residents 



Late Nov 



Phase Three 

Departure from Rebuilding Plan 



40 residents 
oppeor at village 
board meeting to 
discuss HUD 
housing 



Village board 
Community residents 



Dec 7 



Block one lot 

sold to private 
businessman 



Businessmen 



Dec 30 



Feb 3 



Purchase of lot 


back half block 


two by private 


businessman 


Businessman 


Lot owner 


UJ 




U1 


ec 


< 


D 


I 


o 


a. 


u. 



Resolution to 
Purchose lots on 
back half block 
two for $40 per 
frontage foot 



Village board 



Feb 1 1971 



Key to Lot Map 

Lend Purchase Building 



by individual 



by CCDC (option) 



existing 



Laa__J new construction 



Main St (US 24) 





v\ 


\\ 


\N 






s\ 


\\ 






\\ 


S\ 


12 


1 

•Ih 


1 


1 


8 


7 


1 




4 


3 


1 


1 



o 
u 



BLOCK TWO 



13 1 


14 j 15 


1 

16 1 1 


7 18 



o 




10 



l: 



.\\ 






■■ \ 



BLOCK ONE 



^ 


14 


15 


V 

16 


17 


< 

18 



a 
o 



Figure 11 



Union St. 



30 



Main St 






Shops 





Laundry 



Existing 
Store 




- 


1 



Telephone 

Exchange 



V 





1 








Pa 


rki 


ng 


110 


cart 


























1 

1 
















































\ 




6 units 
HUD housing 



8 units 
HUD housing 



11-27-70 



Figure 12 
Phase Three — Sununary 



Union St 

A design proposal for block one; Phase Three 



In this phase the first major departure from the rebuilding plan occurred. The 
village board, which had been trying to prevent rebuilding on either block, so that 
the rebuilding plan could be implemented in its entirety, gave up on the less 
important block one. Several businessmen, without business or other income, 
were feeling the pinch of living expenses and taxes. 

The CCDC continued, without success, to seek sources of money and potential new 
business. Recognizing a decline in community support, a survey of residents 
was organized by the Junior Women's Association. The results of this survey 
were disappointing. 

The town board began to encounter resistance to HUD housing from community resi- 
dents. Late in this phase it attempted to aid the CCDC by trying to purchase 
lots in the still-vacant block two. 

31 



Phase Three — IwenCs : November 5, 1970 through February 3, 1971 



November 5 



Ground is broken for a new building on lot 12, block one. 
The design team, along with a local contractor, helped de- 
sign it. 



November 19 



A local service organization, the Junior Women's Association 
(JWA) , announces that they will conduct a survey of community 
residents in cooperation with the CCDC. Questions included 
relate to interest in the proposed Village Center, willing- 
ness to use it, willingness to invest in it and the CCDC, 
and any suggestions or complaints. 



November 30 



The mayor sends a letter to a congressional representative 
to see if he can contact HUD about obtaining funds from 
their demonstration program. He estimates that $450,000 
would be needed for the first phase of the demonstration 
program. 



December 7 



Forty community residents appear at a town board meeting 
to discuss HUD housing. 



December 30 



A block-one lot owner sells his lot to a businessman who 
wants to rebuild a business. 



January 18, 1971 



The mayor sends a letter to the state representative stating 
that the village needs $50,000 to buy lots to be reserved 
for the Village Center. 



February 1 



At a regular Village Board meeting, the board passes a reso- 
lution to purchase lots on the back half of block two. 



32 



Phase Three — Roles and Folic 



■zX. 



Businessmen 



When one businessman began rebuilding on block one, the 
likelihood of implementing many of the design team's re- 
building recommendations dropped. Several reasons were 
given for the departure. 



(Village board member) 



(Town resident) 



The businessman was bound and de- 
termined to rebuild in the same spot. 

The businessman didn't want to be 
told where to rebuild. 



(Village board member): 



(CCDC member) 



The businessman couldn't live off 
the insurance settlement, so the 
village board allowed the build- 
ing to be built. 

The CCDC got tired of fighting in- 
dividual rebuilding efforts and 
gave up on block one. 



The lack of business income and the prospect of paying tax 
on insurance settlements were certainly forces to be reckoned 
with. 

One other businessman purchased an adjoining lot in block 
one, thus showing his intention to rebuild individually. 
The unity of businessmen needed for an integrated rebuild- 
ing was eroding. 



CCDC 



The CCDC faced two major problems during this phase. First, 
thb CCDC had to obtain commitments from potential renters 
before it could receive an SBA loan and begin building, but 
had little success in locating any. 



(CCDC member): 



The CCDC couldn't get that many 
renters at once. 



(Village official); 



The CCDC tried hard to attract 
new business. It advertised in 
newspapers, but this was unsuccess- 
ful; most potential lessors 
wanted a building that was already 
built. 



The CCDC was in the unenviable position of not being able to 
attract new renters until a building was there, and not 
being able to get a new building until it got new renters. 
The rebuilding in block one removed two potential renters. 

Second, the CCDC had no success in finding outside sources 
of funding for commercial purposes other than SBA. The 
CCDC also looked for funds from private individuals to 
finance the rebuilding plan. A tentative project analysis 



33 



Phase Three — Roles and Policy (cent.) 



indicated that $300,000 would be needed for the first 
four years of operation. The development corporation, 
in its early stages, tried without success to find 100 
people willing to invest $3000 each in bonds which would 
return 6% interest after four years. 



Community Residents 



Support from community residents, as well as businessmen, 
was an important resource which declined during this phase. 
Since government funds had not come through, money from 
within the community became the principal source of funds. 
Some perceived the rebuilding plan to be unfeasible when 
first presented in phase two. This perception may have 
been intensified as no potential renters were found, no 
new sources of funding were discovered, and as individual 
rebuilding efforts began. We obtained some impressions of 
this decline in interviews. 



(Village official) 



Rebuilding caused substantial divi- 
sion in the community. Many who 
gave money to the CCDC ($25 initial 
contribution) didn't support it 
100% as time went on. 



(CCDC member) 



(CCDC member) 



When people found out state and fed- 
eral governments were not going to 
rebuild the town, they backed down. 

The plan lost impetus when Eisner's 
decided not to come in; the grocery 
was needed as a nucleus for the plan. 



(Design team member) 



Village Board 



For their plans, time was of the 
essence. When buildings (inde- 
pendently constructed) started to 
go up, time was lost. 



HUD housing had been suggested as part of the rebuilding 
plan. Community residents began to question the need for 
it during this phase. 

The Village Board continued to act in support of the CCDC by 
pressing ahead for HUD housing for the town. The mayor 
actively pursued new sources of funding and looked for 
potential commercial renters. The board was also important 
in a passive sense for the actions it permitted: issuance 
of a rebuilding permit in block one. According to the re- 
building plan, block one was to be used for future expan- 
sion; however, the board did permit more immediate rebuild- 
ing on it, while it tried to retain block two for a complete 
village center. Later in this phase, the village board at- 
tempted to purchase the remaining lots in block two for 
the development corporation. 



34 



Feb 3 1971 


Phase Four 

Decline of Support 


Oct 4 




1 


Purchase of lot 
back half block 
two by businessman 


Village lots 
purchased bock 
by CCDC 


Businessman 
Lot owner 


CCDC 
Villaae Board 








UJ 

1/1 

< 

I 

Ol 


Ul 

> 

u. 


























EVENT 


Another lot back 
half block two 
purchased by 
businessman 




$25,000 received 
forpurchose of 
lots in block two 




Non-plan 
building started 




Optioned lots 
purchosed by 
village board 




ROLES 


Businessman 
Lot Owner 


Village Board 
State Government 


Businessman 


Village Board 
CCDC 






Feb 19 






Apr 15 




May 




May 









Key to Lot Mop 

L ond Pu re hose Building 



^ 



by individual 



by Village Board 



ex i St inc 



nn n 



ew construction 



Main St. (aSZ4l 



o 
u 




BLOCK TWO 



m 


1 ] 




1 
1 
1 




^ 


1 1 




1 
1 






14 I 15 j 


16 i 1 


D 

7 [ 18 



Figure 13 



o 
O 



._ 








'/y 








] 








1 






^ 






J 










9 


a 




5 


4 


3 


7 


1 


12 


II 


10 












^ / 


/. 













BLOCK ONE 



L^n 


u 


15 


16 


y 

17 


18 



Union St. 



a 



s 



36 



Phase Four — Summary 

Until the beginning of this phase, the major obstacles preventing rebuilding 
were the lack of sufficient funds to purchase lots and build, and the lack of 
success attracting prospective new business. The lesser importance of block 
one for rebuilding made it expendable and one businessman was allowed to begin 
rebuilding there. At the beginning of this phase, one businessman purchased 
lots in the back of block two, later building a residence upon them. This pre- 
vented the rebuilding plan from being implemented at the scale originally en- 
visioned by the design team. Village Board, and CCDC. The Village Board would not, 
or could not, prevent independent rebuilding upon these lots. Several factors may 
have influenced this: 

— the community's continuing decline in interest and support for unified re- 
building 

— the growing controversy over HUD housing, which was linked with the 
plan in many peoples' minds 

— the conflict within the community which the rebuilding had generated 
and which residents wanted to see stopped. 

Later in the phase the village board received money from the State with which 
to purchase lots. This was accomplished, though not without difficulty, 
with the purchase of lots in the front of black two. This opened the way 
for the CCDC to purchase lots back from the village at a nominal price. 



37 



Phase Four — Events : 
February 3 
February 19 

March 29 
April 5 



April 15 
May 1-31 



June 7 



February 3, 1971 through October 4, 1971 

One businessman purchases lot 18 on the back of block two. 

Same businessman purchases part of lot 14 and all of 

lot 15 on the back of block two. They are to be used for 

his residence. 

Village Board decides to immediately activate the village 
zoning committee. 

At a regular Village Board meeting 20 people appear with a 
petition containing 175 signatures opposing low income/ 
elderly housing; however, the Board decides that they 
will notify the county housing authority that they will 
stand by their previous decision to support the project. 

The Village Board receives $25,000 from the State to purchase 
lots in blocks one and two. 

A building permit is issued for construction of a residence 
on the back of block two and a business in block one. 

Another businessman on block two trades the front of his 
lot with the Village Board in exchange for the back of an 
adjacent lot. He begins construction of his building during 
this month. 

The Village Board purchases two lots in block one, all but 
one of the front lots in block two, and one back lot in 
block two. The village takes over CCDC land options. 

At a Village Board meeting, no decisions are made concern 
ing HUD housing. Also, a block two businessman is given 
one week to decide about selling his property on the front 
of block two before condemnation proceedings begin. 



38 



Phase Four — Roles and Policy 



Village Board 



After many months of activity on the part of the 
Village Board and CCDC with few visible results, the 
Village Board tried to regain momentum for the plan 
by attempting to purchase lots on block two. 

When some of these lots in block two were purchased 
by a businessman, the Village Board could have in- 
fluenced the subsequent rebuilding by exercising 
its authority to refuse building permits and condemn 
land, but it did not. The Board did attempt to impose 
restrictions on all individual businesses rebuilt, in 
the form of a revised zoning ordinance. Also, in at 
least one instance condemnation of land was threatened. 

Later in this phase the Village Board purchased all re- 
maining lots in blocks one and two with money pro- 
vided by the State. 



State Government 



Businessmen 



Village Board members played a variety of roles within 
the community (neighbor, business contact, etc.). The 
demands of each of these roles strongly influenced 
each village board member in his role as a board mem- 
ber, thus making the board responsible to the commu- 
nity in many ways, and influencing the board's actions. 

The State gave a $25,000 grant to the town to be used 
for purchase of lots late in this phase. 

The purchase of lots in the back of block two by in- 
dividual businessmen was the most influential single 
act in the rebuilding of Crescent City, because it 
removed the possibility of building a single block 
shopping mall as envisioned by the design team and 
CCDC. This property was now to be used as a residence 
rather than a business. 



Community Residents 



Shortly after this another block-two businessman 
announced his intention to rebuild in block two, ig- 
noring recommendations regarding setback from the 
highway and selection of building materials. Other 
businessmen were still very reluctant to sell block- 
two lots to the Village Board. 

Community support continued to decline in this phase. 
Our interviews suggested several important influences 
which were serving as dividing forces within the com- 
munity at this time. The rebuilding plan appeared 
extravagant, especially as time passed without visible 
results, and as sufficient money sources failed to 
materialize. Mistrust of the design team and CCDC 
developed among some community residents. Any lack 
of faith, founded or unfounded, would reduce the 
chances of unified rebuilding. 



39 



Phase Four — Roles and Policy (cent.) 



Community residents were becoming tired of the conflict 
between groups which the rebuilding effort seemed to 
create. 

(Village official): There was no history of con- 
flict with businessmen before 
the disaster. 

Division caused by the issue of HUD housing also ap- 
peared to decrease support for the Village Board, CCDC, 
and rebuilding plan. 

(Community resident) : At the time they were consider- 
ing putting in the housing 
projects, the town rejected 
them. 

(Design team member) : Community leaders were inter- 
ested in low income/elderly 
housing, but the townspeople 
were not. 



40 



Oct 4 1971 


Phase Five 

Plan Implementation 


Late Dec 


1 


Purchase of lots 
in block two 
from village 


CCDC building 
completed 


CCDC 
Villaqe boarcJ 


CCDC 




























EVENT 
ROLES 


CCDC building 
started 








CCDC 






Mid Oct 







Key to Lot Map 



Land Purchose 



Building 



WA 



by individual 



by Village Boa rd 



by CCDC 



existing 



new construction 



Moln St ( U.S 24) 



o 
u 




c 
□ 

O 



12 



5 



F 



/. 



8 



7/ 



"A 



BLOCK ONE 



^ 


14 


15 


16 


\ 
17 


3 

18 



a 



S 



Figure 14 



Union St. 



42 



Phase Five — Summary 

In this phase the remnants of the rebuilding plan of the CCDC and design team 
were implemented. Most individual businessmen who intended to rebuild had 
either started to rebuild or were back in business by this phase. The CCDC 
purchased lots in block two from the village board and completed the building 
that now houses the town's only grocery. The two-block area, for all practical 
purposes, was now rebuilt. The HUD housing project was dropped. 



o 



Main St 



TT 



{^ 



^ 



G 



Union Si 



A^ 









1 




Tavern 




Grocery 


Future expansion ' 


\ 











D 



~) 



Pof I Office 
Reitauronl 



Tavern 



Beauty thop 
Existing Building 



a 
o 



Figure 15 A design proposal for blocks one and two; Phase Five 



Phase Five — Events: October 4, 1971 to January 1972 



October 4 



CCDC buys lots 6-10, block two from the village. Low 
income/elderly housing project is dropped for lack of 
support witliin the town. 



Mid-October 
December 



Construction begins on the CCDC building. 

Construction of the building for the CCDC is completed, 
and a convenience grocery store opens within it. 



&-K 



Phase Five — Roles and Policy 



Village Board 



During this phase the Village Board finally dropped 
the HUD housing project due to lack of agreement over 
its importance among community residents. The board 
itself was still in favor of the idea. 



CCDC 



The CCDC was unable to obtain an SBA loan to purchase 
land and start construction of a building until it 
found businessmen willing to rent or buy space. During 
this phase it found a businessman from outside the town 
willing to do so and obtained the SBA 502 loan. The 
grocery opened a little over one and one-half years 
after the explosion. 



Community Residents 



Significantly, this one and a half year time period 
is the approximate time period which many people felt 
was the length of time it took for the town to return 
to normal following the explosion, and so, arbitrarily 
marks the time our interest in Crescent City's rebuilding 
ends. 



44 



Seven Years After 



Today the only sign of the destruction which occurred in Crescent City is a monu- 
ment with a small sculpture made from train wreckage, just west of the city hall. 
The town has clean, one-story, commercial buildings lining the south side of 
Route 2A . Well-kept homes lie behind the commercial strip and north of the 
TP&W tracks. 

Most people do not mind talking about the events of seven years ago. They will 
tell you they really like the appearance of the new town, and most will minimize 
the importance of the old town. In fact some will joke with you and even say 
that the explosion was a form of instant urban renewal — it got rid of a lot of 
old buildings which needed to be torn down anyway. The people of Crescent City 
continue to display the durability which enabled them to rebuild their town. 



45 




Figure lb Main Street, 1977 (looking southeast from Main and Colfax) 



Figure 17 Main Street, 1977 (looking southwest between Grant and Maple) 




(0 

z 



(0 

3 

J 

u 

z 



u 



CONCLUSIONS 

Public Policy 

Our initial intent for this study was to identify and describe the groups 
or individuals influential in public policy formation in Crescent City. This 
would be limited to policy directly related to redevelopment in the destroyed 
commercial district. We began by formulating the following definition of pub- 
lic policy: 

"a stated or implied set of priorities within a defined area of juris- 
diction resulting in decisions which attempt to respond to problems 
within the area of jurisdiction." 

As the research proceeded, we found that there was not one set of priori- 
ties directing decision-making, but many. It seemed to make more sense to 
think in terms of micro-policy, the decision-making rules for specific roles, 
rather than an overall policy which directed the course of action. We have 
now defined policy as Richard Bellman did in "Dynamic Programming," as a 
set of rules telling one what decision to make in terms of the present state 
of the system. 

As will be discussed later in this section, the scale of the small town 
seems to be a very important consideration. We suggest that the small town dif- 
fers from the city, or the region, not only in size but in structure. There 
may be a continuum of scale along which the concept of public policy needs to 
be adjusted. Awareness of these structural differences could prevent unnecessary 
problems for architects and planners working at the small town scale. 

We would now like to summarize the major problems which arose during the 
redevelopment of Crescent City. Rather than making recommendations for design 
professionals to follow, based on this one isolated example, we prefer to pre- 
sent our conslusions as potential problems to be anticipated. As every situa- 
tion is different, it is our hope that the framework we have developed (Fig. 18) 
would be more useful to the designer than the specifics of the Crescent 
City situation. 

The major problems which occurred during Crescent City's redevelopment 
process can be placed into five categories: money, time, context, goals, and 
scale. 

Money 

Perhaps the most obvious problem was the lack of money, or more accurately, 
the failure to mobilize it. 

Public sources of financing failed to materialize early enough. The only 
outright grants came from the State of Illinois (for purchase of lots) and 
Local Government Affairs (for planning). Small Business Administration loans 
carried the stipulation that potential renters be pre-committed; this brought 
about a costly loss of time and limited some possibilities of attracting 
renters later. 

Private up-front money was not as readily available as initially hoped. 
The problem seems to be more a reluctance to invest than a lack of funds. This 
was due to several reasons: some mistrust of the CCDC board, the village of- 
ficials, and the architects; misunderstanding of the purpose of a development 
corporation; disagreement over the physical features of the plan; a general at- 
titude of conservatism toward spending money; and a rather widely-held belief 
that Crescent City did not need, and could not support, much commercial develop- 
ment. 

48 



CONCLUSIONS 
Money (cont.) 



The loss of income by businessmen with destroyed businesses necessitated 
a fast solution to the problem. This was complicated by related problems: 
insurance compensations were not enough to replace the destroyed buildings; 
and it was difficult in some cases to document lost inventories. These condi- 
tions made it somewhat difficult for the businessmen who had lost businesses 
to get enough money to rebuild. More potential renters for the new village 
center were lost when some of the older businessmen decided to retire r;ither 
then go back into business. 

Time 

Time was a crucial factor which contributed to erosion of support for the 
plan. The early enthusiasm exhibited at the first meetings after the explosion 
died out as reality set in. The early work done by the design team was largely 
conceptual rather than specific, partly due to LGA's requirements. The need 
was for a fast solution; loss of income as time passed without a building in 
which to conduct business became more crucial. People were not willing to 
wait for the plan to be developed in a more specific way. 

Support for the plan faltered as disappointing market survey results came 
in, the expected federal money did not materialize, and the unpopular HUD hous- 
ing was tacked onto the project. As buildings were constructed in block one, 
which was to have been reserved for future expansion, and the back half of 
block two, which was to have been included in the initial phase of development, 
the possibilities were severely restricted and more time was lost. 

Context 

When Crescent City was first laid out in the 1860's, it had two primary 
"reasons for being": the railroad and the grain elevator. At the time, the 
town was relatively self-sufficient and the commercial strip which grew up along 
Highway 24 served most of the needs of the residents. But later changes favored 
development elsewhere: the railroad ceased to carry passengers; Route 24 was 
widened and paved, and major north-south routes intersected 24 elsewhere (Route 45 
at Oilman and 1 at Watseka; much later, 1-57 at Oilman and 1-65 in Indiana. See 
Fig. 1). All of these factors reduced Crescent City status as a favorable 
business or industrial location relative to other towns. Oilman, Watseka, 
Kankakee, Kentland (Indiana), and, further away, Chicago and Champaign-Urbana , 
grew for various reasons. Easily accessible from Crescent City, they provided 
jobs and low prices only their larger competitive markets could stand. 

In 1970, Crescent City was no longer self-sufficient and had no need for 
commercial development aside from the "convenience" type. Anything beyond that 
could survive only if it were able to attract business from outside the com- 
munity. This was not attempted, partly because of the financial risk involved, 
and partly because bringing in "outsiders" was generally felt to be undesirable. 

Goals 

There was no agreement on goals for the redevelopment project, relative to 
its nature and scope. The design team worked primarily through the village 
officials and CCDC board, who had optimistic, long-term goals for the project. 
They felt that business could be attracted to the town to support a somewhat 
more ambitious development. Many community residents, however, withheld needed 



49 



CONCLUSIONS 

Goals (cont.) 

support because they took a more conservative position. They preferred not to 
risk competing with larger nearby towns and were content to settle for a small 
convenience- type shopping development. In actuality, the proposed development 
was not far removed from that; but many people misunderstood it, having trouble 
visualizing it based on the architects' drawings and model. They tended to 
visualize a much more extensive shopping center than what was intended. 

A few individuals with short-term goals controlled the situation because 
they owned key parcels of land. The formal power structure was not the control- 
ling force in this situation. The scale of decision-making was at the level of 
individual goals, rather than community-wide goals. 

Scale 

Crescent City has avoided many of the problems of larger towns and cities 
simply because of its size. There are few public services (no police force, no 
sewers), thus capital expenditures are low and so are taxes. The low taxes and 
lack of big-city problems are important reasons why people live there, although 
local family ties seem to be the most prevalent reason. All of this helps to 
explain why there is a tendency to resist local change, and a fear of ambitious 
or larger-scale development. 

As mentioned earlier, some of the qualitative, rather than quantitative, 
implications of small-town scale are very important. The formal power structure 
in Crescent City, the Village Board, was not effectively in control of land use 
in the two-block area. The re-activated zoning ordinance was not enforced all 
the time; possible actions such as property condemnation were threatened but 
never used, to our knowledge. 

We can make two observations about this. First, as a result of the explosion, 
the Village Board was forced into a new role for which it was not prepared. Pre- 
viously, its functions were to manage the water supply system, and to let con- 
tracts for small-scale repairs and improvements on public property. But as the 
elected decision-making body for the town, it was expected to manage clean-up 
after the explosion, and eventually, to manage redevelopment. The design team 
could only make recommendations — ultimately the decisions, and their enforcement, 
had to rest on local officials, either of the CCDC or the Village Board. 

The second observation is really a continuation of the first. Every indivi- 
dual in Crescent City was playing more than one role during any given phase. 
Sometimes these roles came into conflict. Village Board and CCDC board members 
were also neighbors, business contacts, churchgoers and Softball teammates, to 
people who opposed the redevelopment plan. While the Boards as entities had 
collective goals for the community, the individuals who made them up had their 
own individual goals which sometimes took higher priority. They were reluctant 
to enforce some things at the risk of losing friendships or business. Again, 
the scale of decision-making was individual rather than community-wide. 



50 



c 



Explosion 



D 



Need for 
rebui Iding 
determined 



Diaaram of Rebuilding Process 



Rebui Idi ng 
group formed 



PTtonol 



Influence 



Rebuilding 

plan formulated 



P'on 



Pr omot ion 



G roups and 
Individuoh with 
resources needed 
for rebuilding 



Mobilize resources 
according to 
rebuilding plan 




Mobilize resources 
but not according 
to rebuilding plan 



Do not mobiliie 
resources 



Plan 
Implementation 



Non- plan 
Implemento ion 



Revi'g 



plon 



"O 



Figure 18 




pg 



Effects of ^ 

resource decisions 



51 



>■ 

(D 



J 


Q 


I 
h 
Ul 



METHODOLOGY 

Large scale disaster causes many serious problems of recovery. Rebuild- 
ing is but one aspect of the total problem, and while not the most immediate 
one, it appears that it may be the most pervasive one. We chose to study 
Crescent City because the magnitude of the rebuilding problems it had to face 
seemed disproportionate to its small size. We t mght this would make the 
rebuilding process more apparent than under normal circumstances. In the case 
of Crescent City the slow, incremental changes tiat usually occur in the built 
environment materialized overnight, thus providing a unique opportunity to ob- 
serve the process of change in a small toxvm magnified in scope and intensified 
in t ime . 

It was our desire to collect information abouL the rebuilding of Crescent 
City, then develop a model of the rebuilding process from the town's own ex- 
periences, rather than testing the validity of other process models of rebuild- 
ing. At a later time our process model of rebuilding i:i Crescent City could 
be compared to other models. 

One of the stipulations of our research grant from the National Science 
Foundation was that the research be interdisciplinary; considering the broad 
scope of useful inquiry for phenomena occurring at the larger scale, we felt 
an interdisciplinary approach was mandatory. If the results of our interdis- 
ciplinary inquiry were to be expressed in a format which was usable for the de- 
sign and planning professions, the information needed to be integrated across 
disciplinary lines rather than divided by them. This goal seemed achievable if 
our analysis was drawn directly from the data. 

For these reasons the development of a conceptual framework for analysis 
was the most important, yet most difficult, aspect of our research. The frame- 
work had to account for all useful units of analysis — with each unit in proper 
relation to other units. The structure of this framework was not substantially 
completed until the final stage of data collection began, and has since been 
refined as the analysis has progressed. 

Data Collection 

Data was collected in three major stages: 1) pre-summer, 2) summer- 
background, and 3) summer- focused. 

Pre-summer . Our main intent was to determine the availability of documen- 
tary sources of data such as town histories and local newspaper accounts. We 
also obtained a copy of the original rebuilding plan report and began to con- 
sider how we wanted to initially approach the town. At this time we were un- 
sure of how townspeople would react to our research. It was decided that of- 
ficial approval from the mayor and village board would be necessary. 

Summer-background . Our intent in this stage was to collect a wide range 
of information about the town and surrounding region that would serve to es- 
tablish a context for more specific data collected later. We also tried to 
develop a variety of data sources to allow the possibility of cross-validating 
information. 

Documentary sources were much more reliable than other data sources for 
exact dates of events. Among these documentary sources were: local newspapers, 
county planning documents, village board minutes from before the explosion to 
the present time, and two county histories. Dates and "event" descriptions 
from these sources were extremely useful in creating a framework for questions 
during later interviews. 



54 



METHODOLOGY (cont.) 



The unstructured interviews conducted in this stage were used to obtain 
general information about the town, about immediate reactions to the explosion, 
and about the town's rebuilding. Initially, we interviewed principal people 
in the town (fire chief, mayor, village board members, etc.). Recommendations 
for further interviewees were asked for at the end of each interview. At 
first, recommendations were our principal basis for selecting people to talk 
to. After we became more confident of our acceptance by the townspeople, and 
as particular recommendations recurred, we used our data as a basis for making 
selections. 

Two interviewers were sent on an interview whenever possible. Notes were 
recorded, then written up at a later time. Initially, two sets of notes were 
used as a check, since most of our researchers were not experienced interviewers. 
Tape recorders were considered, but were decided against because we thought they 
might make people more reluctant to speak. Also, we did not have the resources 
to transcribe a large number of tapes rapidly. 

During this phase of data collection, we were particularly fortunate to 
gain access to all the correspondence between the principal design team archi- 
tect and various people connected with the rebuilding. We were also able to ob- 
tain all preliminary drawings and sketches produced by the design team for the 
duration of the rebuilding. The content of these drawings was used later in 
our analysis to validate some of our assumptions about rebuilding phases. 

Summer — focused . Our intent in this stage of data collection was to closely 
examine the rebuilding period in Crescent City. We felt it important to look for 
meaningful sequences of actions which led to particular outcomes within the re- 
building period. Data collection was directed by the conceptual framework de- 
veloped just prior to this stage of research. (See diagram below. Fig. 19) 



Influence! 



Lot 
Changes 



Effecit 



Figure 19 



Simplified Conceptual Framework, July, 1977 



We were specifically interested in changes associated with lots in the two 
block rebuilding area, what influenced each change, and how each change effected 
changes on other lots. 

Land acquisition and transfer information was obtained from the county 
courthouse. Other documentary information was obtained from newspapers and or- 
ganizations directly involved in the rebuilding. Three data collection tools — 
a businessman's interview, a "peoples" interview, and a questionnaire — were 
developed in this stage. 

The businessman's interview (see Appendix) was used to get information 
concerning the business climate at the time of the explosion and at the present 
time, reactions to various events during the rebuilding period, and individual 
factors which influenced the businessmens' decisions about rebuilding. This 
interview was given to nine of fifteen businessmen within the two block re- 
building area and to seven of nineteen businessmen outside Lhis area but within 
Crescent City. 



55 



METHODOLOGY (cont.) 

Late in this stage of data collection we were concerned about obtaining in- 
formation only from people who appeared to be closely related to the rebuilding — 
or who were referred to us by those previously interviewed. The "peoples" in- 
terview and questionnaire were used to collect information from a random sample 
of people within the community. 

The "peoples" interview was a direct outgrowth of our conceptual framework. 
In this type of interview the interviewer was to probe, from a set of previously 
chosen events, for influences upon, and effects t , each event. This interview 
technique was used for only six interviews before summer data collection was 
finished. 

The questionnaire was intended to be used mainly as a check upon informa- 
tion gathered previously. Its content was similar to that of the businessman's 
interview, and it was mailed with a self-addressed, stamped envelope included 
for return. Seventy-five questionnaires were distrijuted within the corporate 
limits of Crescent City and seventy-five outside the corporate limits, but within 
five miles of the town center. Ten of these were returned, not delivered, and 
forty one were returned in some stage of completion. 

For our purposes the interviews generally provided more useful information 
than the questionnaire, because the interviewer could correct misinterpretations 
of questions and pursue interesting lines of inquiry for which the questionnaire 
would provide only one answer. People were generally reluctant to provide lengthy 
responses to open-ended questions on the questionnaire — while not finding it dif- 
ficult to elaborate on their answers in an interview. The questionnaire seemed 
more useful in testing very specific hypotheses which could be answered with a 
few words. 

Data Analysis 

Our data analysis was carried out in two parts: 1) concurrent with data 
collection, and 2) after summer fieldwork was completed. 

Early analysis . Early in the summer-background stage of data collection, 
we analyzed the content of seven of the first interviews in terms of themes 
discussed. We attempted to generate a list of categories which could be used 
for later analysis and intended to periodically update the list. However, 
this attempt was discontinued before we moved into the summer-focused stage; 
it would have required an inordinate amount of time beyond our manpower limits. 
Also, the structure of the interviews proved to be too inconsistent for formal 
analysis . 

By the end of summer data collection, we had compiled a master list of all 
events related to the rebuilding period. All our documentary sources were used 
for the compilation of this list. 

Later analysis . After the summer we reviewed the events list and chose 
six key events which seemed pivotal in the final outcome of rebuilding. Each 
key event was selected because it reduced the number of alternative reLux_ding 
solutions possible. These six key events were then used to break the rebuilci'ng 
process into five phases. Also at this time we developed a list of roles which 
seemed pertinent to the rebuilding, based on our own impressions. Later we 
reviewed early interviews and businessman interviews, noting important roles. 
We then compared the two sets of role formulations and formed a revised list of 
roles related to the rebuilding. 

Next, the roles were examined within the context of rebuilding phases. 
Role interactions were noted within each time-phase, and sequences of actions 
culminating in the final event of the phase were traced as the data would allow. 
When it was possible to infer decision rules for the actions of an individual 



56 



METHODOLOGY (cont.) 

playing a particular role, the rules were noted as "policy". 

Finally, the design team's drawings were correlated with the rebuilding 
phases according to their dates of completion. Each was then examined in 
light of the events which occurred during the phase in which it was drawn. 

Some implications for further research . At the beginning of our study 
we assumed that Crescent City's rebuilding process wns controlled by public 
policy formulated by the town government, much the same as a large city would 
promulgate a renewal policy. Our study suggests that public policy does not 
exist at the scale of a small town in the same way it does in a large urban 
setting — the force of local government being ameliorated by other factors at 
the smaller scale. This suggests (since policy does play a part in any re- 
building) that it may be useful to consider the concept of public policy along 
a continuum of scale from small town to large city. It would be helpful to 
define this continuum more explicitly. Comparative studies of the rebuilding 
process of towns at a similar scale would be a first step in testing such a 
hypothesis. 



57 



X 

D 

2 
ui 

a 
a 

< 



THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION STUDENT-ORIGINATED STUDIES PROGRAM 



The Crescent City research project was funded by a grant from the National Sci- 
ence Foundation under its Student-Originated Studies Program. The following 
excerpt from the National Science Foundation's "Guide for Preparation of Pro- 
posals (1976)" describes "^he nature and intent ol the program. 

"The Student-Originated Studies Program is designed to provide teams 
of college students with experience in independent, self-directed study 
in which they initiate, plan and direct their own research activities 
with minimal supervision. Each project is prnblem-orienLtd and seeks 
an understanding of and possible solutions to a local problem that has 
immediate relevance to society. 

"Proposals may be submitted in any combination of science disciplines 
but they must present an interdisciplinary approach to solving a problem. 
The proposal should describe the scientific research the student group 
wishes to carry out and give details as to the funds required for that 
purpose. The research problem must be not only amenable to a scientific 
solution, but one requiring an investigation that draws upon several sci- 
ence disciplines. The emphasis in the Program is on independent study 
as an educational vehicle to train the kinds of scientific personnel that 
our society will need to solve interdisciplinary problems." 

The field work for tills rcsearcli project was done primarily during a ten-week 
period in the summer of 1977. llu: team, under ths auspices of the Department 
of Architecture at the University of Illinois, was made up of seven students 
representing the fields of anthropology, community psychology, sociology, 
agricultural economics, urban planning, and architecture. 



60 



DEFINITION OF TERMS 

role : a group or individual having a unique set of goals and a common 

perception of the state of the system during a specific time period 
(a phase in this case). Any individual can fit into many role groups 
during the same phase. Depending on the nature of the decision to be 
made, the individual will act according to the policy of one of his 
roles. 

policy : a set of rules, stated or unstated, telling one what decision to 
make in terms of one's present perception of the state of the 
system. ^ 

event : Two types of events are documented in the description of the rebuild- 
ing process. The first is a change to a lot within the two-block com- 
mercial area: sale of the lot, sale of an option on the lot, or con- 
struction of a building on the lot. The second type of event is an 
occurrence which sets a direction, or establishes a policy, relative 
to the redevelopment process as a total. 

community : a physical boundary within which people share a sense of identity 
(not necessarily "belonging"). In the case of Crescent City, all peo- 
ple within the school district are included in the community because 
that is an important activity which focuses identity. When asked, 
people usually mentioned the churches, school, and grain elevator as 
three nodes which drew people together. School district is the most easily 
defined In physical terms. 

lot : parcel of ground whose boundaries are legally defined. 

land : ground without regard to legalized boundaries. 

resource : that which is necessary to achieve a goal. 

goal : a desired outcome. 

phase : a discrete time period between two events which are pivotal in terms 
of the final outcome of Crescent City's rebuilding. 



^ Adapted from Richard Bellman, "Dynamic Programming," Science , (July 
1966), 34-37. 



61 



CRESCENT CITY TODAY 
Agriculture 



Businesses 



Schools and Churches 



Government 



Geology 



Iroquois County is a sparsely populated, agri- 
cultural county and the Crescent City area is no 
exception. Some of the richest farmland in the 
country can be found there, with principal crops 
being corn and soybeans. As in many rural areas, 
a few very large families make up a sizable part 
of the population. Most of the residents of 
Crescent City are descended from families of 
agricultural background or are retired farmers 
themselves. The town's grain elevator is an 
important economic asset and serves the surround- 
ing area. 

Crescent City has a few medium-sized business 
operations, including among others a lumberyard, 
boat factory, and several construction contractors. 
Many of the residents work in the surrounding 
towns, primarily Gilman, Watseka, and Kankakee 
(see Fig.l ). Most shopping is done in these 
places as well. 

A grade school and high school are located in the 
town. The schools are the objects of much local 
pride, and consolidation into larger school dis- 
tricts has traditionally been opposed. Crescent 
City also has three churches: Catholic, Lutheran 
(the largest congregation) and Methodist. 

Local governmental units include two townships 
(Crescent and Iroquois) and the elected Village 
Board of Trustees. Town government is primarily 
concerned with the water supply system, as there 
is no police department. Public expenditures are 
minimal and thus taxes are very low; an issue of 
current concern is the lack of a sewage treatment 
facility. 

The soil in the area is sediment from a glacial lake, 
Lake Watseka, which is believed to have dried up some 
14,000 years ago. This tight, fine-grained soil does 
not accept fluids rapidly and makes a gent "■ ly sound 
foundation material. The water table is high ! ider 
most of the region, and much of the town's watei: is 
supplied by the numerous local artesian wells. Sur- 
face water drains to McCutcheon's Slough, which 
skirts the southern and western edges of town (Fig. 
5) . The slough empties into Spring Creek to the north- 
west and eventually into the Iroquois River (Fig.l ). 
Like that of the rest of central Illinois, the local 
topography is very flat; total relief in the immediate 
area is not much more than fifty feet. An interesting 
geological feature is an arch-shaped warping of the 
bedrock between Crescent City and Watseka. Natural 



62 



CRESCENT CITY TODAY (cont.) 

gas has been injected into this storage dome by 
Northern Illinois Gas Company, in a convenient 
location to meet the Chicago suburban demand. 

Physical Form An examination of the map of Crescent City (Fig. 5) 

provides much information about its physical form. 
U.S. 24, a well-traveled east-west route, cuts the 
town in half along with the railroad tracks which 
it parallels. Most of the town's businesses, be- 
fore 1970 as well as today, have frontage on 24. 
Illinois 49 delineates the western edge of town. 
The imposing structures of the grain elevators on 
the north side of the tracks are visual landmarks, 
as are the nearby town hall and water tower, located 
between 24 and the tracks. 

Housing is overwhelmingly of the single-family de- 
tached type, although there is one apartment build- 
ing in the town. Styles and sizes vary widely; some 
of the houses date back to the late 1800' s. Newer 
subdivisions are obvious on the map, in the south- 
western corner of town and the northern edges of 
town. The town is growing steadily but very slowly. 



63 



DEVELOPMENT BEFORE 1970 
Early Settlement 



Impact of Transportation 



Early records tell us that Iroquois and Illinois 
Indians populated Iroquois County. Although they 
warred with each other, apparently they were friend- 
ly to the white people who began to arrive in the 
1830' s. The first white settlers in the Crescent 
City area were English descendants migrating westward 
from Ohio and Indiana. A substantial impetus for de- 
velopment occurred in 1858 when tracks were laid for 
the Peoria and Equawka Extension Railroad (now 
Toledo, Peoria and Western). The railroad brought 
with it a larger market, and cultivated farms began 
to dot the landscape. Much of the land was swampy 
prairieland, however, and it was not until German im- 
migrants arrived in 1865 that the area was drained 
and tiled. By 1869, a railroad station and switch 
were built approximately halfway between the towns 
of Oilman and Watseka. Immediately thereafter, the 
town was given the name of Crescent City and was 
laid out and platted. 

The railroad carried freight and passengers, although 
passenger service was discontinued in 1928. U.S. 
Route 24, the "Cornbelt Highway," parallels the rail- 
road in Crescent City and together they bisect it. 
This highway brought Crescent City much of its business, 
and was a major physical form determinant as well. 
State Route 49, a minor north-south arterial forming 
the western edge of town, has had less impact than 
Route 24, serving mostly local needs, as it substan- 
tially parallels other larger north-south routes. 
These roads were not paved until the 1920 's, although 
they were in existence earlier. 

The local completion in the last decade of Interstate 
57, which connects Chicago and Memphis, has had a pro- 
nounced effect on the entire Crescent City area. Seven 
miles west of Crescent City, the 1-57 interchange at 
Route 24 in Oilman, Illinois, has decreased traffic 
on 49 while increasing it on 24, which now acts as a 
feeder for both 1-57 and 1-65 in Indiana. 



64 



QUESTIONNAIRE 

THE INFORMATION FROM THIS SECTION WILL HELP US IN DETERMINING THE GENERAL 
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CRESCENT CITY AREA RESIDENTS. PLEASE CIRCLE THE 
APPROPRIATE LETTER FOR THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS. 



Demographic Data 
1. Sex: a. male 



Are you the person to whom 

this questionnaire was addressed? 



female 



2. What Is your marital status? 

a. married 

b. separated 

c. divorced 

d. widowed 

e. never married 



yes 



no 



3. 



5. 



What is your relation to the head of the household? 

a. head 

b. spouse 

c. other (specify) 



Your age is: 



a. 
b. 
c. 
d. 
e. 
f . 



below 20 

20-30 

30-A0 

40-50 

50-60 

60-70 

70+ 



What Is your occupation or job title? 
a. professional worker 

technical worker 

sales worker 

manager or administrator 

clerical worker 

foreman 

laborer 

craftsman 

farmer or farm worker 

service worker 

machine operator 

full-time homemaker 

student 

unemployed 

retired 

other (specify) 



b. 
c. 
d. 
e. 
f. 

g- 
h. 
i. 

J- 
k. 

1. 
m. 
n. 
o. 
P- 




6. What town do you work in? 



7. What was your total family income before taxes last year, 1976? 

a. under $5,000 

b. $5,000~$10,000 

c. $10,000— $15,000 

d. $15,000— $20,000 

e. $20,000— $30,000 

f. $30,00CH- 

65 



What is the highest grade of school you have completed? 

a. no formal education 

b. eighth grade or less 

c. some high school 

d. some high school plus technical-vocational school 

e. high school graduate 

f. technical-vocational school beyond high school 

g. some college, no degree 
h. college graduate 

1. some graduate school, no degree 

j. graduate or professional degree 

Do you have any religious affiliation? 
a. yes b. no 

If yes , what is it? 



10. Do you attend a church in Crescent City? 
a. yes b. no 

11. Do you consider yourself from Crescent City? 
a. yes b. no 

If no, where do you say you are from? 

12. How long have you lived in the Crescent City area? 



13. Were either of your parents born in the Crescent City area? 
a. yes b. no 



66 



THIS SECTION WILL HELP US UNDERSTAND WHAT CRESCENT CITY WAS LIKE BEFORE THE 
DISASTER. PLEASE CIRCLE OR ANSWER BRIEFLY THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS. 



14. 
15. 

16, 

17. 
18. 



Were you working outside Crescent City in 1970? 
a. yes b. no 

Did you do most of the weekly grocery shopping for your family? 
a. yes b. no 

If no, who did it? 



Where did you buy your groceries in 1970? 



When Crescent City had its own grocery store, did you use it: 

a. most of the time 

b. occasionally 

c. hardly ever 

d. not at all 



19. What physical features in Crescent City prior to the disaster did you 
think were most distinctive? 

20. If you could bring back some aspect of the old business district, what 
would it be? 

21. If you were going to have a business in Crescent City, where would you 
locate it? Please indicate on this map. 




N<>«»<-^ 



67 



PLEASE USE THE LIST OF BUSINESSES BELOW TO ANSWER THE FOLLOWING (8) QUESTIONS, 
YOU MAY WISH TO REFER TO THE PHOTOGRAPH ON THE BACK SIDE OF THE LAST PAGE OF 
THIS QUESTIONNAIRE. 



22, 



23. 



24. 



25, 



26. 



27, 



Which businesses were most successful in 1970? 

(Please write the numbers corresponding to the businesses here.) 

Which businesses were most important to the town? 

(Please write the numbers corresponding to the businesses here.) 

Which businesses did you most often recommend to friends? 
(Please write the numbers corresponding to the businesses here.) 

Which of these businesses gave credit in 1970? 

(Please write the numbers corresponding to the businesses here.) 

Are there places on this list you would go when out with friends? 
(Please write the numbers corresponding to the businesses here.) 

Are there places on this list you would go when out with family? 
(Please write the numbers corresponding to the businesses here.) 



28. How often did you use these businesses? 

(Place the letter to the right of the businesses below.) 
a. often b. occasionally c. seldom d. never 



29. How satisfied were you with them? 

(Place the letter to the right of the businesses below.) 

a. liked a lot b. liked c. didn't care d. disliked 



detested 



(1) Hill's Feed and Poultry 

(2) Simpson's Auto Repair 

(3) Nelda's Beauty Salon 

(4) Lavoie's Standard Oil Agent 

(5) Leo Scheldt's 

(6) Paul Miner's Restaurant 

(7) Meyer's Launderette 

(8) Midwest Litho Printing 

(9) Audrey and Rink's 
(lO)Morrison Construction 
(ll)C.C. Farmer's Elevator 
(12)Sea Sprite Boat Co. 



Q.28/Q.29 




/ 


(13) 


/ 


(14) 


/ 


(15) 


/ 


(16) 


/ 


(17) 


/ 


(18) 


/ 


(19) 


/ 


(20) 


/ 


(21) 


/ 


(22) 


/ 


(23) 


/ 


(24) 



Q.28/Q.29 



Hofmeister's Hardware 
Diane's Beauty Shop 
Marilyn's Beauty Shop 
Jenkin's Barber Shop 
Crescent Oil Service 
Gibson's Standard 
Morton's Piano Service 
Hoffman's Shell Station_ 
U.S. Post Office 
Ennen's Tool and Die 
Schmidt's Steak House 
Alexander Lumber Co . 



68 



THIS SECTION CONCERNS EVENTS FOLLOWING THE EXPLOSION, PLEASE CIRCLE OR ANSWER 
BRIEFLY THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS. 

30. How were you affected by the explosion? (Circle all that apply.) 

a. extensive property damage 

b. slight property damage 

c. no property damage 

d. extensive personal injury 

e. slight personal injury 

f. no personal injury 

31. Did any of your close relatives sustain extensive property damage or 
personal injury? 

a. yes b. no 

32. Which businesses did you miss the most? 

33. What goods and services were difficult to obtain after the explosion? 

34. Are there places outside Crescent City where you became a regular customer? 
a. yes b. no 

35. Aside from normal business activities, what other things did you do in 
business district? 

Where did you do these things? 

Did the disaster change that? 
a. yes b. no 

36. Were you a member of the Development Corporation? 
a. yes b. no 

37. If n£, why did you decide not to participate? 

38. How did you hear about the Development Corporation? 

39. What influenced you to join the Development Corporation? 



69 



40. Did you attend Development Corporation meetings? 
a. yes b. no 

41. Do you still participate in the Development Corporation? 
a. yes b. no 

42. Who in Crescent City do you think would have benefited most from the ac- 
tivities of the Development Corporation? 

43. Did you hear about any plans for low- income and elderly housing in Crescent 
City after the explosion? 

a. yes b. no 

If yes , when did you first hear about it? (specify month and year.) 

What did you think of it? Were you: 

a. strongly in support of it 

b. in support of it 

c. neutral 

d. against it 

e. strongly against 

44. Did you know that architects were drawing up plans for rebuilding 
Crescent City? 

(You may wish to refer to the drawing on the back of the last page of 
this questionnaire.) 
a. yes b. no 

45. Did you ever see any of these plans? 
a. yes b. no 

If yes , when? 

46. Did you talk to any of the architects personally? 
a. yes b. no 

47. Did you go to the town meeting at the high school when the rebuilding plans 
were presented? 





70' 



"WK:© a ftRC/^ , lU^nEAD ! 



A8. After it was over, what did you personally think about the meeting? 

49. What did other people think about the meeting? 

a. liked the plan 

b. felt wary about the plan 

c. were undecided about the plan 

d. did not like the plan 

e. other (specify) 

50. Did you attend any other meetings that dealt with rebuilding? 
a. yes b. no 

If yes , when? (Specify month and year) 

51. What did you like or dislike about the plans for rebuilding Crescent City? 

52. What were some of your ideas about rebuilding Crescent City? 
Please draw them on this map. 






iTf'. '.W. 



iTK^-KS: 









r 



■^ K~ 



uhT^h^tT 



^ f 




u^' 



"^msK 



^ / 



^ \ 




t 



1 r 



71 



THIS SECTION CONCERNS INFORMATION ABOUT INFLUENCES ON REBUILDING. 
PLEASE CIRCLE YOUR ANSWERS AND RANK THEM BELOW. 

53. l^ich of the following were most influential in getting Crescent City 
rebuilt? Name three (3): 

a. Development Corporation 

b. mayor 

c. trustees 

d. local businessmen 

e. other local organizations 

f. state government 

g. federal government 

h. individuals on their own 

i. architects and planners 

j. influential local families 

k. other (specify) 

Could you rank these in order of importance? 

1. 

2. 

3. 

How did they influence rebuilding? 

THIS SECTION CONCERNS A BRIEF PICTURE OF BUSINESSES USAGE TODAY. 
PLEASE CIRCLE OR ANSWER BRIEFLY THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS. 

54. Which do you like better: 

a. parking in business district before 1970 (on-street parking) 

b. parking in business district today (off-street parking) 

Why? 

55. Can Crescent City support new businesses? 
a. yes b. no 

If yes , what kinds? 

56. What will Crescent City be like ten years from now? 

a. declining 

b . same 

c. growing 

Why do you think so? 



72 



57. When you go up town, do you usually walk or drive? 

58. How would you describe to a stranger what Crescent City looks like? 

PLEASE CIRCLE THE NUMBER OF THE BEST ANSWER. 

59. Where would you usually go for: 



Crescent City 


Watseka 


Oilman 


Kank 


weekly grocery shopping 




2 


3 


4 


convenience grocery items 




2 


3 


4 


clothes 




2 


3 


4 


appliances 




2 


3 


4 


gasoline 




2 


3 


4 


tools and hardware 




2 


3 


4 


repairs 




2 


3 


4 


banking 




2 


3 


4 


doctors and dentists 




2 


3 


4 


drugs and prescriptions 




2 


3 


4 


a new car 




2 


3 


4 


Christmas shopping 




2 


3 


4 



Other 



RECREATION 

movies 

eating out 

going out with friends 

going out with your family 

vacations 



2 
2 
2 
2 
2 



3 
3 
3 
3 
3 



4 
4 
4 
4 
4 



73 



PLEASE USE THE LIST OF BUSINESSES BELOW TO ANSWER THE FOLLOWING (8) QUESTIONS. 

60. Which businesses are most successful today? 

(Please write the numbers corresponding to the businesses here.) 

61. Which businesses are most important to the town? 

(Please write the numbers corresponding to the businesses here.) 

62. Which businesses do you most often recommend to friends? 
(Please write the numbers corresponding to the businesses here.) 

63. Which of these businesses give credit today? 

(Please write the numbers corresponding to the businesses here.) 

64. Are there places on this list you would go when out with friends? 
(Please write the numbers coreesponding to the businesses here.) 

65. Are there places on this list you would go when out with family? 
(Please write the numbers corresponding to the businesses here.) 



66. 



67. 



How often do you use these businesses? 

(Place the letter to the right of the businesses below.) 

a. often b. occasionally c. seldom d. never 

How satisfied are you with them? 

(Place the letter to the right of the businesses below.) 

a. like a lot b. like c. don't care d. dislike e. detest 



(1) Leo Scheldt's 

(2) Sennett's Market 

(3) A-Way Grain Elevator 

(4) Audrey and Rink's 

(5) Glen Schiewe's Print Shop 

(6) Horton's Piano Service 

(7) Light's Hardware 

(8) Hoffman's Shell Station 

(9) Gibson's Standard 

(10) Kountry Kettle 

(11) U.S. Post Office 



Q.66/Q.67 






(12) 




(13) 




(14) 




(15) 




(16) 




(17) 




(18) 




(19) 




(20) 




(21) 




(22) 



Ennen's Tool and Die 
Peter's Construction 
Miner's Coin Laundry 
Ward's Car Wash 
Alexander Lumber Co . 
Jenkin's Barber Shop 
Gocken Standard Station 
Gene Paap Masonry 
Crescent Oil Service 
Sterrenberg Insurance 
Jack's Idle Hour 



Q.66/Q.67 



/ 
7" 

/ 
'f 

~r 

7" 
T 
7" 

7" 
/" 
7' 



74 



WHAT KIND OF TOWN WOULD YOU LIKE CRESCENT CITY TO BE? BELOW IS A LIST OF 
CHARACTERISTICS OF A SMALL TOWN THAT ARCHITECTS MIGHT HAVE CONSIDERED IN RE- 
BUILDING THE BUSINESS DISTRICT. INDICATE WHAT KIND OF TOWN YOU WOULD LIKE 
BY PLACING A CHECK IN THE APPROPRIATE COLUMN. 



7. 



9. 



I reject 
this 



Not ray 
concern 



Desirable Important Essential 



A town where you 
know everybody . 

A town where new 
families settle 
down. 

A town that is distinct 
in appearance from 
other towns. 

A town that keeps 
growing. 

A town where people 
keep their yards up. 

A self-sufficient 
town. 

A town with parks 
and landscaping. 

A town with industrial 
development . 

A town where each 
building has its 
own character. 






10. A town where people 
would come to retire. 

11. A town with lots of 
different kinds of 
people. 

12. A town that people 
have built themselves. 

13. A town that outsiders 
like to visit. 

Are there any other comments you would like to make about the rebuilding, or 
any suggestions or comments about this research project? 

THE ENCLOSED ENVELOPE IS FOR YOUR USE IN RETURNING THE QUESTIONNAIRE. 
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR HELPING US I 



75 



The Structured Interview: Interviewer's Text 
STATE THE FOLLOWING BEFORE THE INTERVIEW BEGINS. 

My name is . I am a student at the University of Illinois 

and part of a research team which has received a grant from the National Sci- 
ence Foundation. As you probably already know, our research team is studying 
the response of Crescent City to the 1970 tank car explosion. Since most of 
the business section was destroyed in the explosion, the rebuilding of the lo- 
cal businesses is a central part of our study. This interview includes ques- 
tions on what business was like in 1970, how you were affected by the explosion, 
your decisions about rebuilding, and about business today in Crescent City. 

I will read the question and record your answer. Certain questions have 
many possible responses — for these I will show you a card with a list of an- 
swers on them. You may then tell me which answer seems best. If you do not 
understand a question, tell me, and I will repeat it. You do not have to 
answer any questions you feel uncomfortable about. All your answers will be 
kept in strict confidence. 



76 



30. What were the arrangements? 

31. Did anyone else own it with you? 

a. yes (go to 32) b. no (go to 33) 

32. Who owned it with you? 

33. How many people were working for you at any one time in 1970? 

34. Did you have problems getting employees? 

35. Did you give credit in 1970? 
a. yes b. no 

REACTION TO EXPLOSION (CIRCLE CORRECT ANSWER). 

36. How did the explosion affect your business? 

a. It was completely destroyed 

b. Part of it was salvaged 

c. Other (specify) 



37. Immediately after the explosion, how did you feel about rebuilding? 
I planned to: 

a. rebuild immediately 

b. wait and see 

c. not rebuild 

d. other (specify) 



EFFECTS OF EXPLOSION 

38. Did you have insurance? 

a. yes (go to 39) b. no (go to 41) 

39. What was covered? 

40. How did you feel about your insurance compensation? 

a. very unsatisfied b. neutral c. very satisfied 

41. Did you receive compensation from the TP&W? 
a. yes (go to 42) b. no (go to 43) 

42. How did you feel about this compensation? 

a. very unsatisfied b. neut al c. very satisfied 

43. Was the business your only source of income at this time? 
a. yes b. no 

44. Were the other sources sufficient to support you and your family? 
a. yes b. no 

SHOW LIST OF CATEGORIES FOR INFLUENCES 

45. Here is a list of things that may have influenced your decision to rebuild 
(or not). Please check the items that had the most influence on your deci- 
sion to stay or not to stay in business after the explosion. Any questions? 

46. Were there any others that you feel should be mentioned? 
a. yes (what?) b. no 

47. Of the ones you have checked, which '•'. s the most influential? 

48. How? 

49. Which was the second most influential? 

50. How? 

CATEGORIES FOR INFLUENCES— WHETHER OR NOT TO STAY IN BUSINESS 
Financial 

Railroad settlement: TP&W 



_Availability of loans 
Potential for governmental assistance 
_Income from other sources 



Interviewer: 

Date: 

Person Interviewed: 

BRING OUT OLD TOWN PHOTOGRAPHS. RECORD BUILDINGS IDENTIFIED AND ORDER OF IDEN- 
TIFICATION ON DRAWING. 

1. Would you show me which was your business, building, lot? 

2. Could you point out what some of the other buildings are? 

IF NOT ABLE TO USE PHOTOGRAPHS, USE THESE QUESTIONS. 

3. Could you describe the location of your business? 

4. Could you describe where some of the other businesses were in relation to yours? 

PLEASE TELL ME THE LETTER OF THE ANSWER WHICH SEEMS BEST. 

5. In your opinion, how was the business community doing in 1970? 

a. very poor 

b. poor 

c. fair 

d. good 

e. excellent 

6. Could Crescent City have supported expansion of the individual businesses 
that were already there? 
a. yes (go to 7) b. no (go to 8) 

7. Which ones? SHOW LIST OF BUSINESS, ASK THEM TO SAY LETTER OF BUSINESSES 

8. Could Crescent City have supported new businesses in 1970? 
a. yes (go to 9) b. no (go to 10) 

9. What kind? 

10. Which businesses were doing particularly well in 1970? SHOW LIST OF BUSINESSES 

11. Would you rank the top 5? (response card) (Of the ones you have chosen, which 
one was best, second best, third best, etc.) 

12. Which businesses were mostly used by local people? 

13. Which businesses attracted people from out of town? 

14. Where do these people come from? 

15. What percentage of your business came from Route 24? 

16. What percentage of your business came from Route 49? 

17. How was your own business doing in 1970? 
a. very poor (go to 20) b. poor (go to 20) c. fair (go to 20) 
d. good (go to 18) e. excellent (go to 18) 

18. Did you have any plans for expansion in 1970? 
a. yes (go to 19) b. no (go to 20) 

19. What were they? 

20. Did anyone else own the business with you? 
a. yes (go to 21) b. no (go to 22) 

21. Who owned it with you? (name) 

22. What kinds of people used your business? (farmers, housewives, young people, etc.) 

23. Did you own the building in 1970? 

a. yes (go to 24) b. no (go to 26) . 

24. Did anyone else own the building with you? I 
a. yes (go to 25) b. no (go to 29) I 

25. Who owned it with you? (name) 

26. Were you renting the building? 
a. yes (go to 27) b. no (go to 29) 

27. From whom did you rent? (names) 

28. What type of lease did you have? 

29. Did you own the lot in 1970? 
a. yes (go to 31) b. no (go to 30) 

78 



I 



^ 



Financial (cont.) 

Taxes 

Insurance 

^Debts requiring immediate action 

Business 

Availability of customers 



_Other businesses in town 

After the explosion, construction of first new buildings 
Competition with businesses outside town 



Social 



Family 

Local leaders (other than government) 
Other businessmen 
_Actlons of townspeople 
Advice from friends 



Availability of Construction 

Immediate availability of vacant buildings 

Availability of pre-fab buildings 



Availability of desired location 



Official 
^Zoning 



Action of Crescent City Development Corporation 
Architect's plan 
Town government 



Personal 

^Personal preferences 



Goals and aspirations 

Training and experience 

Length of time in business before explosion 



Other 



Specify, if possible 



CROSS OUT THE ONES THAT DON'T APPLY: 

THIS PERSON CHOSE NOT TO REBUILD. GO .? 51. 

THIS PERSON CHOSE TO REBUILD A DIFFEREN " BUSINES. GO TO 54. 

THIS PERSON CHOSE TO REBUILD THE SAME BUSINESS. GO TO 59. 

51. Did you sell your land? 

a. yes (go to 52) b. no (go to 68) 

52. To whom? 

53. When? 

GO TO 68. 

54. What influenced you to change your business? Please choose three of the 
following. (RESPONSE CARD) 

a. personal preference for type of business 

b. potentially greater market 

c. easier supply 

d. dissatisfaction with prior business 

e. advice or recommendation from others 

f. lower starting and operating cost 

g. greater ease of operation 
h. potentially greater profits 

i. other (specify) _^ 

RECORD LETTERS IN ORDER CHOSEN. 

79 



55. Which was most influential? 

56. How? 

57. Which was the second most influential? 

58. How? 

BEFORE INTERVIEWING, CROSS OUT WHICHEVER OF THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS DO NOT APPLY, 

59. This person chose to rebuild on a new location. (go to 60) 
This person chose to rebuild on the same location. (go to 65) 

60. What influenced your decision to move? Please choose three of the items 
on this list. (INTERVIEWER RECORD LETTERS OF THREE RESPONSES CHOSEN.) 
(RESPONSE CARD) 

61. Of the items you've chosen, which was the most influential? 

62 . How? 

63. Which was the second most influential? 

64. How? 

65. What things did you do to begin rebuilding? 

(Prompts: Apply for a building permit? Hire a contractor? etc.) 

66. Please tell me which of the following helped you finance your rebuilding. 
(INTERVIEWER READ LIST AND CHECK ALL THAT APPLY.) 

a. insurance 

b. money from the TP&W 

c. savings 

d. income from other sources 

e. If there were any sources I have not mentioned, please tell me what 
they were. 

67. Did you feel you had adequate financial backing to rebuild? 

EVENTS: READ INTRODUCTION 

68. In this section of the interview, I will ask you questions about some events 
that took place after the explosion. 

69. Did you attend the first meeting of Crescent City businessmen with destroyed 
business? 

a. yes (go to 69) b. no (go to 73) 

70. How did you find out about the meeting? 

71. What was decided at the meeting? 

72. Was the meeting helpful in dealing with your own problems? 
a. yes b. no 

73. Which of the following governmental agencies did you have personal contact 
with following the explosion? INTERVIEWER READ POSSIBLE ANSWERS. 

a. SBA (go to 74) 

b. IRS (go to 74) 

c. County Housing Authority (go to 74) 

d. local town government (go to 75) 

e. other (specify) (go to 74) 

f. none (go to 76) 

74. How did you hear about the agency(s)? (go to 103) 

75. Who did you talk to? When? 
Were you helped? 

a. yes (IF YES, READ FOLLOWING QUESTIONS.) How? What was the result 
of the assistance? 

b. no 

76. Were you a member of the Development Corporation? 
a. yes (go to 77) b. no (go to 80) 

80 



^ 



77. How did you hear about it? 

78. What influenced you to join it? 

79. Did you attend meetings? 

a. yes (go to 81) b. no (go to 81) 

80. Why did you decide not to participate? (go to 93) 

81. Do you still participate in the Development Corporation? 
a. yes (go to 83) b. no (go to 82) 

82. When did you decide to stop participating? (USE RESPONSE CARD AS PROMPT.) 

83. What did you think the purpose of the Development Corporation was? 

84. Did the purchase of lots in the business district by the Village Board 
influence your decision to rebuild (or not to rebuild)? 

a. yes (go to 85) b. no (go to 86) 

85. How? 

86. Who in Crescent City do you think would have benefitted most from the 
activities of the Development Corporation? 

87. Do you think the Development Corporation was a good idea? 
a. yes (go to 88) b. no (go to 89) 

88. Why? (go to 90) 

89. Why not? (go to 90) 

90. Did you hear about any plans for low income and elderly housing in 
Crescent City after the explosion? 

a. yes (go to 91) b. no (go to 93) 
91 When did you first hear about this? (USE RESPONSE CARD AS PROMPT.) 

92. What did you think of it? 

93. Did you know that architects were drawing up plans for rebuilding Crescent City? 
a. yes (go to 94) b. no (go to 96) 

94. Did you talk to any of the architects personally? 
a. yes (go to 95) b. no (go to 96) 

95. Did you talk about plans for your own building or the town as a whole? (go to 9o) 
a. own building b. town as a whole c. both 

BRING OUT PHOTOS OF ARCHITECT'S DRAWINGS AND SAY, 
Here are some drawings for rebuilding Crescent City. 

96. Did you ever see any of these pirns? 

a. yes (go to 97) b. no (go to 98) 

97. When? (go to 127) 

98. If the Crescent City business district looked like this, how would your 
business be affected? (REPEAT FOR ALL NINE ARCHITECT'S DRAWINGS.) 

If yes, how? 
Drawing //I: 
Drawing //2 
Drawing //3 

REPEAT QUESTIONS 96-98 FOR ARCHITECT'S DRAWINGS 

Drawing //4, //5, //6, //7, //8, //9. 

99. If you were going to put a business in one of these buildings, which one 
would you choose? (SHOW ALL DRAWINGS; MARK ON OVERLAY.) 

100. Did you go to the town meeting at the high school when the rebuilding plans 
were presented? 
a. yes (go to 101) b. no (go to 104) 

101. How did you find out about the meeting? 

102. After it was over what did you personally think about the meeting? 



81 



103. What did other people think about the meeting? (RESPONSE CARD — CIRCLE 
LETTER OF RESPONSE HERE) : (go to 106) 

a. liked the plan b. felt wary about the plan 

c. were undecided about the plan 

d. other (specify) 

104. Did you know about the meeting? 

a. yes (go to 105) b. no (go to 106) 

105. Why didn't you go? 

106. When did you realize that the town would not get federal money for disaster 
assistance? (USE RESPONSE CARD FOR PROMPT IF NEEDED.) (go to 107) 

107. Were you aware that the village board received $25,000 from Governor Ogilvie 
in the spring of 1971? 

a. yes (go to 108) b. no (go to 110) 

108. Did it have any effect on your activities? 
a. yes (go to 109) b. no (go to 110) 

109. How did it affect you? 

NOW I'M GOING TO ASK YOU SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THE BUSINESS DISTRICT IN CRESCENT 
CITY TODAY. 

110. In your opinion how is the business district today? READ POSSIBLE RESPONSES 
AND CIRCLE RESPONSE GIVEN HERE: 

a. very poor b. poor c. fair d. good e. excellent 

111. Do you think the Crescent City business community is doing better now than 
it was in 1970? 

a. yes b. no 

112. In what way? 

113. Can Crescent City support expansion of its present businesses? 
a. yes (go to 114) b. no (go to 115) 

114. Which ones? 

115. Can Crescent City support new businesses? 

a. yes (go to 116) b. no (go to 117) 

116. What kind? 

117. Which businesses are doing particularly well today? BRING OUT PHOTOS OF 
NEW TOWN. 

118. Would you rank the top five? 

Rank one; rank two; rank three; rank four; rank five. 

119. Which businesses attract people from out of town? 

120. From where do they come? 

121. Which businesses are used mainly by local people? 

122. How is your present business doing? READ POSSIBLE RESPONSES AND CIRCLE 
LETTER OF RESPONSE GIVEN. 

a. poor (go to 124) b. fair (go to 124) 

c. good (go to 123) d. excellent (go to 123) 

123. Do you have any specific plans for expansion? 

SHOW MAP OF TOWN TODAY AND PHOTO OPPOSITE IT. 

124. Would you show me where the best locations are for business in Crescent City? 
INTERVIEWER WRITE LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS HERE, NOTING WHETHER OFF ROUTE 24. 

IF ON 24, NOTE WHETHER NORTH OR SOUTH, CENTER OF BLOCK OR CORNER, AND AT 
WHICH CROSS STREETS. 

125. What percentage of your business comes from Route 24? 



I 



82 



126. What percentage of your business comes from Route 49? 

127. Where is your major supplier? 

128. What kind of people use your business? (PROMPT: farmers, housewives, 
young people, etc.) 

129. Are you the sole ovmer of your business? 

a. yes (go to 131) b, no (go to 130) 

130. Who owns it with you? 

131. Do you own the building your business is in? 
a. yes (go to 134) b. no (go to 132) 

132. Do you rent? 

a. yes (go to 134) b. no (go to 133) 

133. What are the arrangements? 

134. Do you feel you made the right decision about rebuilding (or not rebuilding)? 

135. Is there anything else about the rebuilding that we haven't discussed that 
you feel is important? 

136. Do you have any questions about this interview or the research project? 
Any suggestions? 



81 



BIBLIOGRAPHY Part I: Data Sources 

Ackerman, William. "Crescent City, Illinois, Water Supply." Unpublished 
report, Illinois State Water Survey, Champaign, Illinois, 1970. 

Babcock, Steven D. Industrial-Community Profile: Watseka, Illinois . Bloom- 
ington, Indiana: Resource Development Internship Project, 1972. 

Beckwith, H.W. History of Iroquois County . Chicago: H.H. Hill & Co., 1880. 

Bergstrom, Robert E. "Geology for Planning at Crescent City, Illinois." 
Urbana: Illinois State Geological Survey, 1970. 

Bicentennial Historical Committee. History of Crescent City, Illinois . 
Crescent City: Glen Scheiwe, 1976. 

Champaign-Urbana News-Gazette . June, 1970 through August, 1971. 

Chase, Julia. "A Case Study: Crescent City, Illinois." Unpublished paper. 
University of Illinois, 1974. 

Crescent City Development Corporation. Financial Transactions, August, 1970 
through July, 1977. 

Environetic Research. Iroquois County, Illinois: Ecological Impact Analysis, 
Physical Resource and Transportation System Characteristics . Chicago: 
Environetic Research, 1972. 

Iroquois County, Illinois: Housing, Solid Waste Disposal, and Continuing 
Planning Program . Chicago: Environetic Research, 1972. 

Iroquois County, Illinois: Human Resource Environmental Plan. Chicago: 
Environetic Research, 1972. 

Evans, Campbell K. "Economic Base Analysis of Crescent City, Illinois." Un- 
published report, Campbell Evans Real Estate Appraisals, Champaign, 
Illinois, 1970. 

Gilman Star . June, 1969 through June, 1971. 

"1967 Quadrennial Tax Assessments." 20 July 1967. 

"1971 Quadrennial Tax Assessments." 25 Nov. 1971. 

"1975 Quadrennial Tax Assessments." 4 Sept. 1975. 
Illinois Bell Telephone. Watseka/Crescent City Telephone Directory, 1970 . 

Watseka/Crescent City Telephone Directory, 1977 . 

Illinois Department of Local Government Affairs. Guide to Illinois State 
Services . Springfield: Office of Research and Planning, 1976. 



84 



BIBLIOGRAPHY 



Iroquois County, Illinois. Land Transfer Records, Crescent and Iroquois 
Townships, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1977. 

Plat Book 1976: Index of Owners and City Street Maps . LaPorte, Indiana: 
Town and Country Publishing Co., Inc., 1976. 

Subdivision Regulations . Prepared by G.R. Justus and Associates, Ltd., 
Bowling Green, Kentucky, 1975. 

Tax Assessment Records, Crescent and Iroquois Townships, 1970, 1976. 

Technical Recommendations for a Recreational Area Licensing Ordinance . 
Watseka, 111., 1976. 

Triennial Atlas and Plat Book, 1969 . Rockford: Rockford Map Publishers, 
1969. 

Year Book. 1974-75 . Compiled by Donald Pursley, Watseka, 111., 1975. 

Zoning Atlas . Prepared by G.R. Justus and Associates, Ltd., Bowling 
Green, Kentucky, 1974. 

Zoning Ordinance . Prepared by Environetic Research Corp., Bowling 
Green, Kentucky, 1974. 

Kankakee Dally Journal . June, 1970 through July, 1977. 

Laz-Edwards-Dankert and Associated Consultants, Rebuilding Crescent City . 
Champaign, Illinois: Laz-Edwards-Dankert and Illinois Department 
of Local Government Affairs, 1970. 

National Transportation Safety Board. Railroad Accident Report . Report 

No. NTSB-RAR-72-2. Washington, D.C.: National Transportation Safety 
Board, 1972. 

Small Business Administration. "Key Features of SBA's Principal Lending 
Programs." Washington, D.C.: Office of Public Information, 1969. 

"Loans to Local Development Companies." Washington, D.C.: Office 
of Public Information, 1975. 

"Small Business Administration: What it is. What it does." Washington, 
D.C.: Office of Public Information, 1970. 

Village of Crescent City, Illinois. Minutes of Village Board meetings from 
April 4, 1960 through April 7, 1975. 

Revised Ordinances . Mllford, Illinois: Milford Herald-News, 1960. 

Zoning Ordinance . Crescent City, 1971. 



85 



BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Watseka Dally Times-Republic . June, 1970 through August, 1977. 

WCIA-TV (CBS). "CIA Reports: Crescent City Rebuilds." Video tape and tech- 
nical script of October 20, 1971 documentary. Champaign, Illinois: 
Dick Adams, WCIA-TV, producer. 

BIBLIOGRAPHY Part 2: Methodology Sources 

Bellman, Richard. "Dynamic Programming," Science (July 1966): 34-37. 

Berelson, Bernard. Content Analysis in Communication Research . Glencoe: 
Free Press, 1952. 

Boudon, Philippe. Lived-in Architecture . Cambridge: MIT Press, 1972. 

Cohen, Richard A. "Small Town Revitalization: Case Studies and a Critique," 
Journal of American Institute of Planners . 43 (January 1977): 3-12. 

Collier, John Jr. Visual Anthropology: Photography as a Research Method . 
New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1967. 

Dean, Lois R. Five Towns: A Comparative Community Study . New York: Random 
House, 1967. 

Downs, Roger M. , and Stea, David, eds. Image and Environment: Cognitive 
Mapping and Spatial Behavior . Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co., 1973. 

Gidel, Julie, ed. Evaluation of a Congregate Retirement Residence and Housing 
Preferences of Prospective Occupants . Urbana: Department of Architec- 
ture, University of Illinois, 1976. 

Glaser, Barney and Strauss, Anselm. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: 

Strategies for Qualitative Research . Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co., 
1967. 

Gottschalk, Simon. Rural New Towns: Toward a National Policy . Cambridge: 
Center for Economic Development, 1971. 

Haas, J. Eugene, Kates, Robert W. , and Bouden, Martyn, J., eds. 

Reconstruction Following Disasters . Cambridge: MIT Press, 1977. 

Haggett, Peter. Network Analysis in Geography . London: E. Arnold, 1969. 

Hyland, Stanely E. et al. The East Urbana Energy Study, 1972-74: 

Instrument Development, Methodological Assessment, and Base Data . Urbana: 

Uhiversity of Illinois, 1975. 
Hyman, Herbert H. et al., Interviewing in Social Research . Chicago: The 

University of Chicago Press, 1970. 
Kaplan, The Conduct of Inquiry . San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Co., 1964. 



86 



LaPiere, Richard T., ed. Methods in Social Research . New York: McGraw 
Hill, 1952. 

Lindzey, Gardner and Aronson, Elliott, eds. The Handbook of Social 

Psychology , 2nd Ed. Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co. , 
1968. 

Lynch, Devin. The Image of the City . Cambridge: MIT Press, 1960. 

Parshall, Steven A, and Preiser, Wolfgang, eds. Proceedings of the Mobile 
Home Seminar . Urbana: Department of Architecture, University of 
Illinois, 1976. 

Parshall, Steven A., ed. Energy Consumption and Social Interaction in Mobile 
Home Parks, Champaign County, Illinois . Urbana: Department of Architec- 
ture, University of Illinois, 1974. 

Sullivan, Harry Stack, M.D. The Psychiatric Interview . New York: W.W. Norton 
and Co. , Inc. , 1970. 

Summers, Gene, et al. Before Industrialization: A Rural Social System Base 

Study . Bulletin 736, Agriculatural Experiment Station. Urbana: College 
of Agriculture, University of Illinois, 1969. 

Thayer, Ralph E. "Toward a Community Awareness of Growth and Development 
Problems," Small Town . 

Verona, John M. "Local Residents Plan the Process of Revitalization," 
Sma 1 1 Town . 

Vidich, Arthur J. and Bensman, Joseph. Small Town in Mass Society: Class, 
Power and Religion in a Rural Community . Princeton: Princeton 
University Press, 1968. 

Schatzman, Leonard, and Strauss, Anselm. Field Research: Strageties for a 
Natural Sociology . Englewood Cliffs, N. J. : Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1973. 

Warnick, James P. "Small Communities Have Their Share of Problems," 
Champaign-Urbana Courier , 4 Nov. 1976. 

Winkelhake, Claude. "The Community Game," Objective , March 1976. 



87 



UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS-URBANA 

711 40973C864 C003 

THE CRESCENT CITY DISASTER URBANA, ILL 




12 02531